High Court Kerala High Court

United India Insurance Company … vs Pennamma on 9 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company … vs Pennamma on 9 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 669 of 2004(P)


1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PENNAMMA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RETNAM MANUVEL, -DO-  -DO-.

3. RAJAYYAN DANIEL,

4. SUBHAYA DANIEL,

5. B. ANILA, -DO- -DO-.

6. ANITHA ASOK,

7. DR.M.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :09/07/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                 ...........................................
                   M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2004
                 .............................................
             Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum in OP(MV)No.751/1996. The

claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he died

during the pendency of the case. Therefore supplemental

petitioners 2 to 7 have been awarded compensation of

Rs.28,750/= and the amount was ordered to be paid by

respondents 1 and 2.

2. Now the insurance company that has come up in

appeal contending that the award is wrong and there was no

involvement of the vehicle. The owner had entered

appearance before the court below and he has been examined

as RW1.

3. The insurance company is only entitled to raise a

ground, that is under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

This will not be a ground unless there is a petition filed

under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the

case. So in the absence of a petition under Section 170

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2004

before the trial court and on account of the fact that the

owner had entered appearance and adduced evidence, it may

not be proper on the part of this court to permit such

contentions by the insurance company.

Therefore, I decline to entertain the appeal and so the

appeal is dismissed but without costs.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2004