IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH POUSHA 193 MACA.No. 220 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------ ` OPMV.No.1831/2004 of THE ADDL. M.A.C.T.,KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,KOTTAYAM,REP.BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,REGIONAL OFFICE,METRO PALACE,ERNAKULAM NORTH KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------- 1. SUMA @ BINDU,D/O.KUTTAN,PUNNILAM THARAYIL HOUSE,PUNNATHARA.P.O,AYARKUNNAM KOTTAYAM-686583.
2. SASEENDRAN @ NOBLE,S/O.KOCHOLAKUMAR, PULLORTHOTTIYIL HOUSE,KIDANGOOR SOUTH.P.O KOTTAYAM-686583.
3. KUMARAN VASU,CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686572. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SHAJU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.392/2011 IN MACA.NO.220/2011 -------- DISMISSED 1 1/2013 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.220 OF 201.------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 JUDGMENT The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 30/7/2010 in O.P.(MV). No.1831/2004 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The lst respondent is the claimant. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation of `1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in an accident involving the motorcycle. The Tribunal passed the award allowing the petitioner to recover a sum of `18,200/- with interest at 7% per annum and costs. The Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the compensation amount within one month. The Insurance Company contended that the policy issued was a 'Liability Only Policy' which will not cover the risk of a pillion rider/gratuitous passenger. Ext.B1 is the copy of the policy, which stipulates 'Liability Only Policy' for Zone B motorcycle. It is also contended that the amount of `70/- shown in the policy is -2- M.A.C.A.(C).No.220/2011 collected as per IMT 1.following the risk for `50,000/- each to the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle in the case of death, loss of two limbs, sight of two eyes or one limb and one eye disabled permanently in addition to the other injuries and that since the claimant sustained only minor injuries, she is not entitled to cover the risk of the insured. The Tribunal found that Ext.B1 policy does not refer to IMT 1.and therefore held that there are no reasons to accept the case of the 3rd respondent that Ext.B1 policy has no coverage to the petitioner's claim. On the basis of the said finding, the Tribunal held that the 3rd respondent is liable to indemnify the liability of the insured.
2. The original award passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the Insurance Company in MACA.No.2691/2008 and this Court set aside the award and remanded the case to the Tribunal to re-consider the question of appellant's liability in terms of additional premium collected towards two un-named persons under the Personal Accident Cover. It is submitted that after remand, the appellant filed additional written statement, examined -3- M.A.C.A.(C).No.220/2011 RW1, the authorised officer of the appellant-Company and produced and marked Exts.B2 and B2(a) documents, which are the relevant pages of the Indian Motor Tariff. It is pointed out that ignoring the oral and documentary evidence adduced after the remand, the Tribunal held that Ext.B1 policy does not refer to IMT 1.and that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and to compensate the claimant. The vehicle involving the accident is the scooter. It is not disputed that the policy issued was a 'Liability Only Policy'. From the copy of the policy and the IMT referred above, it is seen that the amount of `70/- shown in the policy is collected as per IMT 1.following the risk for `50,000/- each to the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle in the case of death, loss of two limbs, sight of two eyes or one limb and one eye disabled permanently in addition to other injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that IMT is attached to the policy conditions issued to the customer whenever a policy is taken. It is also pointed out that the capital sum insured therein was payable only in case of death, loss of two limbs or -4- M.A.C.A.(C).No.220/2011 sight of both eyes, loss of one limb and sight of one eye or permanent total disablement. It is also submitted that since the claimant did not suffer from any of the injuries mentioned above, she cannot claim any compensation on the basis of the additional premium paid under the Personal Accident Cover. The contention raised by the appellant was not considered or dealt with by the Tribunal. The additional evidence adduced both oral and documentary was also not considered with reference to the contentions raised. In the circumstances, the matter requires to be re-considered. In the result, the impugned award is set aside. There will be a direction to the Tribunal to re-consider the matter afresh with respect to the appellant's liability and dispose of the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.