IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31271 of 2009(D)
1. K.C.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SARALA,W/O.LATE PRASANNAN,
... Respondent
2. AKSHARA (MINOR),D/O.PRASANNAN,
3. AKSHY (MINOR),S/O.PRASANNAN,
4. NARAYANAN,S/O.KUMARAN,
5. SARADA,W/O.NARAYANAN,
6. PREMKUMAR,S/O.KUMARAN,
7. K.C.VARKEY @ BABY,S/O.CHACKO,
8. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
9. DINESHKUMAR V.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SMT.SARAH SALVY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :22/03/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.31271 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the second respondent in O.P.(MV)
No.908/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The
petition is filed by respondents 1 to 6 claiming compensation for
the death of one Prasannan. According to the second respondent,
his vehicle was insured by the 8th respondent and therefore, he
contended that any liability to pay compensation would have to
be fastened on the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance
Company disputed liability by contending that a cheque that was
issued towards payment of the premium due on the insurance
policy was dishonoured and therefore the policy had been
cancelled by the Insurance Company. According to the second
respondent, he had not issued any cheque towards payment of
the insurance premium. He had actually paid the insurance
premium in cash to the 9th respondent, who was the development
officer of the 8th respondent Insurance Company on his
assurance that the amount would be paid to the 8th respondent.
However, the above assertion of the petitioner was disputed by
the 8th respondent Insurance Company. In the above
wpc No.31271/2009 2
circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 petition for impleading
the 9th respondent as an additional respondent in O.P.(MV)
No.908/2007. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
has dismissed Ext.P8 petition by Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order is
under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. The 8th respondent Insurance Company has filed a
counter affidavit contending that no liability could be fastened on
the 8th respondent for the reason that there was no valid policy in
existence covering the risk of the petitioner. According to the
Insurance Company, the cheque that was issued towards
payment of insurance premium had been dishonoured.
Therefore, the policy itself was cancelled by the Insurance
Company. According to the Insurance Company, the petitioner
was only trying to validate a cancelled insurance policy by
putting forward new stories.
3. Adv.M.S.Kalesh appears for the 7th respondent. He has
no objection to the impleading petition being allowed.
4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has proceeded on
the basis that the dispute that is sought to be adjudicated by the
petitioner is a dispute inter se between respondents 8 and 9 in
this Writ Petition. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the
issue does not directly arise for consideration in the claim
wpc No.31271/2009 3
petition. However, the Tribunal has failed to notice the crucial
fact that a determination of the case pleaded by the petitioner in
this Writ Petition is necessary for deciding as to who should be
made liable for compensating the petitioner in the claim petition.
If the petitioner herein succeeds in proving that he had actually
paid the insurance premium, that would certainly have an impact
on deciding the question as to who should be made liable for the
compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the
application for impleading submitted by the petitioner. For a full
and proper adjudication of all the issues that arise between the
parties, it is necessary that the 9th respondent is also brought
on party array and the case of the petitioner considered on the
merits. In view of the above, Ext.P10 is liable to be set aside. I
do so. I.A.No.1693/1999 in O.P.(MV) No.908/2007 is allowed.
The 9th respondent in the interlocutory application is impleaded
as the additional 4th respondent in the claim petition. The Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is directed to try and dispose of
O.P.(MV) No.908/2007 on the merits.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge
css/