IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1929 of 2008()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BABU.P.P, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,
... Respondent
2. S.SAKTHIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.DIVISIONAL
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
For Respondent :SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :18/12/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1929 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)149/00.
The claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and
he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.20,750/-. The
K.S.R.T.C. has come up in appeal against that decision.
2. The point of dispute between the K.S.R.T.C. and
the insurance company is with respect to the coverage of the
vehicle. The vehicle involved in the accident is KL-15-2877.
Ext.B1 is an attested xerox copy of the policy which covers
518 buses as per the list attached. As per that list item 237
relates to TN 804, KL-15-2878-LL valid from 7.6.97. Now
the whole dispute is that the policy is issued to a vehicle No.
KL-15-2878 and the vehicle involved in the accident is KL-
15-2877. Or in other words, the contention is that the policy
is issued to a different vehicle and therefore the insurance
company is not bound to pay the amount. The Tribunal
M.A.C.A. 1929 OF 2008
-:2:-
accepted that contention. Now the learned counsel argues
that there are two descriptions to a transport vehicle, one
namely, the number is given to the bus by the transport
Corporation and the other the registration number. The
vehicle which is involved in the accident is T.N. 804 and
really the registration number of that vehicle is KL-15-2877.
The Tribunal took the view so far as the number given by the
transport Corporation is concerned it is an internal
arrangement and it shall not have any binding effect on the
insurance company. It is true a mistake has taken
somewhere because T.N. 804 relates to KL-15-2877 and not
KL-15-2878. Learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. had
submitted before me that the vehicle involved in the accident
namely KL-15-2877 is a Leyland make whereas KL-15-2878
is a Tata made vehicle. From the description given with
respect to the vehicle and the make in the list it can be seen
that it is the Leyland vehicle that is insured. So an analysis
of these materials may be necessary to find out whether the
policy was really issued to KL-15-2877. It is only a
typographical error and really the vehicle is insured, the
insurance company shall not be permitted to escape from the
M.A.C.A. 1929 OF 2008
-:3:-
liability. Therefore I set aside the order of the Tribunal and
remit the case back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit
the K.S.R.T.C. to produce these materials and if the proposal
forms are available that also may be directed to be produced
by the insurance company and thereafter the matter be
disposed of in accordance with law.
3. Unfortunately, the insurance company has not
appeared before this Court. Therefore the K.S.R.T.C. is
directed to take out notice to the insurance company after it
enters appearance before the trial Court. Therefore the
award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the
interse liability between the insurance company and the
K.S.R.T.C. and the matter is directed to be disposed of in
terms of the discussion done in the previous paragraphs of
the judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 21.1.09.
The MACA is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-