IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 767 of 2004()
1. SUNIL, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.S.PAUL,
... Respondent
2. ABOOBACKER, S/O. KADER,
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
4. BAWA, S/O. IBRAHIM,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
-------------------------
M.A.C.A. Nos.767 of 2004
&
976 of 2004
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The connected appeals, one filed by the Insurance Company
and the other by the claimant, are against the same award.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
and those appearing for the owner and driver of the vehicle that
caused the accident.
3. The claim of the Insurance Company is that it is not
liable because the owner of the vehicle at the time of taking policy
did not disclose to the Insurance Company that the vehicle is a
tourist taxi. Learned counsel has also relied on Section 149(2)(b)
of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that the claim under the
policy can be dishonoured by the Insurance Company. However,
we find that the accident was on 24/01/1999 when the vehicle was
a private car. In fact, permit was taken only on 08/09/2000 and so
much so the Insurance Company cannot disown liability. Moreover,
M.A.C.A.Nos.767 & 976/2004
-2-
the claim is made by a third party and not passenger of the vehicle.
In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company,
i.e. M.A.C.A.No.976/2004, is dismissed.
4. So far as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned,
the prayer is for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel
has contended that the claimant who was employed abroad had to
wait here for one year to rejoin there. However, we do not find any
tenable evidence to prove that the claimant was disabled for one
year from joining duty. We also notice that reasonable
compensation under various heads is awarded for the injury
sustained by him. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with
the amount of compensation awarded by the MACT. Consequently,
the appeal filed by the claimant i.e.M.A.C.A.No.767/2004 is also
dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)
jg