Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs P.K.Subair on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1900 of 2010()


1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.K.SUBAIR, PUTHALATH KANDY HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AZIZ, S/O. KUNHABDULLA, PULPARA HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :17/12/2010

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                   ...........................................
                   M.A.C.A.NO.1900 OF 2010
                  .............................................
          Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010.

                         J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in OP(MV)No.454/2002. The

claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the

Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.35,351/=

with a direction to the insurance company to pay the

amount.

2. The insurance company has challenged its liability

on the ground that the driver did not have the valid driving

licence or badge and therefore, it is not liable to pay the

amount. In para 14 of the award, the Tribunal just recorded

that no steps are taken by the third respondent to summon

the documents from respondents 1 or 2. But I am informed

by the learned counsel for the insurance company that such

an application was filed as I.A.No.343/2004 and in spite of

an order, the owner and the driver did not produce the

driving licence.

3. It is true that burden is on the insurance company,

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1900 OF 2010

but there are limitations for the insurance company to get

the particulars. They can only summon the person in

custody of the documents. When those people refused to

produce it, necessarily a logical conclusion is to be reached.

But in this case, unfortunately I find that the Tribunal has not

adverted to that contention. Therefore, I feel that an

opportunity has to be given to the insurance company as well

as to the owner and the driver.

4. So the award under challenge is set aside so far as it

relates to the inter se liability between the insurer and the

owner is concerned and a direction is given to the Tribunal

to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as

oral evidence in support of their respective contention on

this question and thereafter dispose of the matter in

accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before

the Tribunal on 24.01.2011. The insurance company shall

take out notice to the owner for a proper further proceeding

of the case.

Disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1900 OF 2010

cl

: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1900 OF 2010

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

…………………………………….
A.S.NO.389 OF 2001
………………………………………
11th day of November, 2010.

J U D G M E N T


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.099 seconds.