IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11136 of 2008(A)
1. SMT.LATHA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW CYRIAC,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
... Respondent
2. KURIAN, S/O.THOMAS,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK,
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY (S)
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.M.B.PRAJITH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :29/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008
.........................................................................
Dated this the 29th September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the
Tribunal is correct and justified in permitting the Insurer of the
vehicle concerned to recover the amount (after satisfying the
liability to the claimant), from the petitioner, who was the
former owner of the vehicle in whose name, the insurer had
admittedly issued the Policy accepting the premium, especially
when a specific finding was arrived at by the Tribunal that, on
the date of the accident, the vehicle was in the name of the
‘second respondent’ herein and not in the name of the petitioner.
2. The sequence of events as discernible from the
impugned Award as well as the Writ petition shows that the
claimant while riding a motor cycle collided with a Maruti van
bearing registration No.KL.7/AA.2404, owned earlier by the
petitioner herein, (which however was subsequently transferred
W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008
2
and came to the hands of the second respondent/registered
owner). This gave rise to the claim before the M.A.C.T.
Thodupuza as O.P.(MV) 638 of 2003, wherein the petitioner was
shown as the first respondent, the actual registered owner-cum-
driver of the Maruti van was shown as the second respondent
and the Insurer was shown as the third respondent. The
petitioner as well as the second respondent chose to remain ex
parte. The Insurer took up a contention disputing the liability
stating that the Policy, in fact, was issued in the name of the
petitioner herein, while the vehicle stood in the name of the
second respondent and this being the position, there was no
privity of contract so as to indemnify the second respondent and
to satisfy the claim.
3. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a
finding that, on the date of the accident i.e. 12.04.2003, the
‘second respondent’ was the actual owner of the vehicle and that
since the second respondent himself was driving the vehicle, the
liability very much stood upon the shoulders of the second
respondent. But since the Insurer admitted issuance of the
W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008
3
Policy in respect of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner
herein, the Insurer was directed to satisfy the Award, however
permitting the Insurer to have it recovered either from the
petitioner herein or from the second respondent/the registered
owner.
4. Pursuant to the above verdict, steps were taken by
the Insurance Company to have the due amount recovered from
the petitioner by sending requisition to the revenue authorities,
which made the petitioner to approach this Court (mainly
challenging the recovery proceedings). The petitioner has also
approached the Tribunal by filing Ex. P4 petition to set aside the
ex parte Award and it was thereafter, that the petitioner
approached this Court by filing the above Writ petition for
immediate intervention in view of the revenue recovery
proceedings..
5. The Writ petition was admitted by this Court on
01.04.2008, also granting interim stay of all further proceedings.
It is very much relevant to note that the only prayer in the Writ
petition is to direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to proceed with
W.P.(C) No. 11136 OF 2008
4
Exts.P2 and P3 notices, till a decision is taken on Ext.P4 by the
M.A.C.T., Thodupuzha. It is not brought to the notice of this
Court whether Ext. P4 is actually pending as on date.
In the above circumstance, the Writ petition is disposed of
directing the M.A.C.T., Thodupuzha to consider and pass orders
on Ext. P4 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, if it is still pending. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of this verdict before the Tribunal for further
steps. The recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant
to Exts. P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk