IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 27 of 2007()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.ITTIATHY,
... Respondent
2. ANTONY JOSE,
3. LIJU VARGHESE,
4. T.G. ASHOK KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.SAJI MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 27 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 1194/02.
The Tribunal awarded the petitioner a compensation of Rs.35,700/-
and directed the Insurance Company to recover it from respondents
1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally. Aggrieved by that
decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal.
2. The contention raised by the Insurance Company is that
the policy stands in the name of the 4th respondent in the claim
application and if the vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent, the
question of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle may not arise.
Secondly, being a passenger in a private jeep, he is having the
characteristic of a gratuitous passenger and therefore the Insurance
Company is to be totally exonerated from the liability.
3. There is a confusion in this case because of the conduct
of the parties. A reference to para 18 of the award would reveal that
the policy stands in the name of the 4th respondent Ashok kumar and
there is convincing documents produced before the Tribunal that the
MACA No.27/07 2
vehicle had been transferred by Ashok kumar in favour of Liju
Varghese with effect from 10.12.99. The Motor Vehicle Inspector’s
report Ext.A8 revealed that the name of the registered owner of the
vehicle is the 2nd respondent. These transfers had taken effect in
1999. The policy is issued for the period from 20.4.2001 to
19.4.2002. The accident had taken place on 9.4.02. The fiction of
an automatic or deemed transfer of a policy under Sec.157 of the
Motor Vehicles Act cannot be extended to a period beyond the
validity period of the policy at the time of effecting transfer. Since the
vehicle is already transferred in the year 1999, the currency of the
then existing policy would have lapsed by 2000. Therefore it is a
fresh policy that has to be taken in the name of the registered owner
of the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Tribunal has taken a view
that Ext.B1 policy also got automatically transferred in the name of
the 2nd respondent. Such a contingency may not arise for the
reason that it is for the subsequent period. If materials are available
and further particulars are required to be produced, it requires
consideration. I am also at loss to understand how Insurance
Companies issue policies even without verifying the registration
certificate of the vehicle. I stop there.
MACA No.27/07 3
4. The next question is regarding the status of the person
travelling in the jeep. If it is only an Act only policy then the status of
that person will be akin to that of a gratuitous passenger. It has been
held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4)
SCC 404] that a gratuitous passenger is not covered by the policy.
When a person is not covered by the policy and when he is not a
third party, the question of directing the Insurance Company to
indemnify the claimant and to get it reimbursed from the owner will
not arise. So it is also a matter that requires consideration at the
hands of the court below.
5. Therefore, I set aside the award passed by the Tribunal
so far as it relates to the Insurance Company’s liability to the parties.
I am not interfering with the quantum of compensation awarded. The
matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of the
following questions:
(i) What will be the impact of Ext.B1 policy when the
vehicle is transferred in the year 1999 and the new policy is issued
for the period 20.4.2001 to 19.4.02.
(ii) Whether any transfer of the vehicle in the year 1999 will
have a deemed transfer under Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act in
MACA No.27/07 4
view of the above fact.
(iii) If the claimant is a gratuitous passenger in a private
jeep and the policy is only Act only policy, whether he is entitled to be
compensated by the Insurance Company as he is only a gratuitous
passenger not covered by the policy and who will not be a third party
to the proceeding.
Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
26.8.08.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No.27/07 5