Kerala High Court
MACA/1519/2008 of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs C.GANESHAN on 10 July 2025
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1519 of 2008 ----------------------- OPMV.242/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA ....................
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI
FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933
MACA.No. 1519 of 2008
-----------------------
OPMV.242/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
....................
APPELLANT:
--------------
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING
PADMA JN., KOCHI-35.
BY ADV .RAJIT.BHASKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1. C.GANESHAN, S/O.CHIMMA NADAR
ANAKKOOTTAM VILAI, THENGAPATTANAM PO., PAMKULAM
VILLAGE, KANYAKUMARI DIST.
TAMIL NADU, NOW RESIDING AT NELLIMALA PUTHUPARAMBIL
ANITHOTTAM BHAGAM, 1ST MILE,
KANJIRAPPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPPALY VILLATGE.
2. V.JAYAN RAJ, S/O.VARGHESE
H66 DI MATHAN VILAI, PAINKULAM PO.,
KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU.
3. HIGBSIB.M.T., MANMILPEEDIKAYIL
MALAYALAPUZHA EARAM PO., PATHANAMTHITTA
DIST-689 645.
4. JOHNSON.M.T., S/O.MATHAI THOMAS
MANMILPEEDIKAYIL, MALAYALAPUZHA,
EARAM PO., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.689 645.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
M.A.C.A. NO. 1519 OF 2008
============================
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
R.Basant, J. The Insurance Company is the appellant. By the impugned award, the 4th respondent has been made liable to pay the entire amount of compensation, i.e. Rs.4,61,520/- along with interest and costs. Though the Insurance Company admitted the policy of insurance, they claimed exoneration from liability as the injured was a gratuitous passenger in the insured vehicle and the policy that was taken was only an “act only” policy. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Insurance Company and absolved the Insurance Company of all liability.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on just one ground. An amount of Rs.25,000/- had been paid by the appellant – Insurance Company to satisfy the award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that inasmuch as the liability of the 4th respondent was satisfied by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is entitled for a direction to the 4th respondent to return the said amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Insurance Company.
3. We find merit in that contention. The Tribunal had not adverted to this aspect at all. The 4th respondent though served, has not chosen to enter appearance before us. It is the liability of the 4th respondent under the impugned award which is discharged by the appellant by making the payment of Rs.25,000/- under the award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. We find the claim of the appellant to be perfectly justified. The claim deserves to be allowed.
5. In the result,
a) this appeal is allowed. b)The appellant is permitted to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the 4th respondent along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of realisation. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- ks. M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE True copy P.S.To Judge
R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 1519 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011
ORDER
R.Basant, J. This appeal filed in 2001 remains in the defect list even now. Respondents 1 to 3 have not been served. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to claim any relief against respondents 1 to 3. The relief is claimed only against respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. C.M. APPLICATION NO. 1506/2008 This petition is to condone th delay of 84 days in filing the M.A.C.A. We take a lenient view. This petition is allowed. Delay is condoned. M.A.C.A NO,. 1519/2008 Heard. The appeal is admitted. R.BASANT, JUDGE
ks. M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.