High Court Kerala High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shibu on 16 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shibu on 16 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 780 of 2007()


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

                        Vs



1. SHIBU, S/O.BASHEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AZEEZ, S/O.MAKKAR,

3. ASHARAF, S/O.MAKKAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.ELIAS

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

 Dated :16/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                  ...........................................
                   M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2007
                 .............................................
            Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV)No.1285/2003.

The insurance company had challenged the award passed

by the tribunal awarding the claimant a compensation of

Rs.42,866/=. The contention of the insurance company as

revealed from the award is to the effect that it was not the

first respondent who was riding the vehicle, but it was the

second respondent who was riding the vehicle. The tribunal

considered Exts.A1 to A5 documents. The First Information

Statement and registration of the crime revealed that, it is

alleged that, the first respondent has driven the auto

rickshaw. The police after due investigation has only

charge sheeted the first respondent. The tribunal further

observed that Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on consent and

therefore, it was futile on the part of the insurance company

to contend otherwise. The investigation records point out

that auto rickshaw was driven by the first respondent in the

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2007

OP(MV).

2. Mere suspicion raised by the insurance company

shall not be a substitute for the proof. The court cannot

decide the matter on the basis of conjectures and surmises

and therefore, I do not find any valid ground to interfere

with the decision rendered by the Claims Tribunal.

Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2007