The Managing Partner vs C.K.Rahiyanath on 29 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 240 of 2010()


1. THE MANAGING PARTNER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C.K.RAHIYANATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AZEEZ (MINOR)

3. SHAHADMILAL (MINOR)

4. HIBA AYSHA (MINOR)

5. AHAMMEDKOYA, S/O.HASSAN,

6. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :29/03/2010

 O R D E R
            A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                  M.A.C.A. No. 240 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
           Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the owner of a vehicle

involved in a motor accident. The Tribunal held that the

appellant was liable to pay the compensation amount of

Rs.1,90,625/- to the claimants. It is contended by the

appellant that the above order is illegal in as much as the

Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the vehicle owned by

the appellant was validly insured with respondent

No.6/Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 Insurance

Company concedes that there was in fact a valid insurance

policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident.

3. It appears that initially there was some confusion

with regard to the correct registration number of the

vehicle. But it is revealed from the records that the

claimants themselves had filed an application to amend the

MACA 240/10 2

claim petition by incorporating the correct number of the

vehicle. Any how, the Insurance Company has now admitted

that there was valid insurance coverage for the vehicle at

the time of the accident. Therefore, there can be no

controversy as of now that the Insurance Company is liable

to indemnify the appellant. Therefore, in modification of the

award passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.6 Insurance

Company is directed to pay the compensation to

respondents 1 to 5/claimants with interest and costs, as

directed in the award.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

mn.