New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mariamma Kuruvila and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: J.B. Koshy
K.P. Balachandran
Judgment Date: 2007-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The Insurance Company is liable to deposit the total compensation amount exceeding Rs.50,000 with interest, and recover the excess from the insured and the driver. The owner and driver remain primarily liable for the balance within the policy limit.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Legal representatives of the motor accident victim

Respondents

Mariamamma Kuruvila
Achamma George
Seena T. George
Leelamma Chacko
Santhamma Varghese
T.K. Joseph
Dr. Alex Thomas
V.P. Kuruvila
The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.
Joy Komarakodathu
C.C. Joseph

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• (Not explicitly named in the document)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. M.R. Mini
• K. Sandesh Raja
• V.G. Arun
• T.P. Varghese
• Philip T. Varghese
• Sunil Cyriac
• George Cherian
• K. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court appeal concerns the quantum of compensation in a motor-accident claim. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of a vehicle insured with the appellant insurer and awarded Rs. 96,000 with interest. The insurer challenged the award, arguing liability under Exhibit B4 policy is capped at Rs. 50,000. The accident occurred on 27-10-1980, during the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Exhibit B4 was produced only in 1997, after the initial pleadings. The Tribunal had remanded the matter and directed deposit of the excess amount, noting that the insurer could be liable for the balance beyond Rs.50,000 and that the claimants’ dependants should not be deprived due to delayed production of documents. The Supreme Court in Maya Banerjee (AIR 1986 SC 2110) was cited for paying compensation despite delay. Ultimately, the High Court held that the insurer is liable to deposit the compensation amount in excess of Rs.50,000 and recover the same from the insured and the driver, with interest, while the owner/driver remain primarily liable for the balance. The appeal was partly allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company to plead and prove its defenses

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimants contended for payment of the full compensation (Rs. 96,000 with interest) by the Insurance Company, arguing the policy terms were superseded by the delay in producing the policy and pleadings; owner and driver should be liable for excess beyond Rs.50,000; the remand order should safeguard the claimants’ rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The Insurance Company argued that liability is capped at Rs.50,000 under Exhibit B4; the owner and driver should bear any excess; despite delay, the insurer should not be forced to pay beyond policy limits; the applicant’s claim should be constrained by the policy terms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
British Indian General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Smt. Maya Banerjee	AIR 1986 SC 2110	Positive	relied upon by the Tribunal/High Court to permit payment by insurer due to delay in producing policy/docs; insurer liable to deposit amount and recover from insured/driver

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2007 / 9TH SRAVANA 1929 MFA.No. 430 of 2000 ---------------------------------- ## OPMV.731/1983 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... ## APPELLANT/4th RESPONDENT: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., TRIVANDRUM REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SRI.K.JACOB MATHEW ## RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, 5 & 6: 1. MARIAMMA KURUVILA, W/O LATE T.K.KURUVILA, THEKKEPLATHANATHU (KUTTIKATTU), MANARCADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ACHAMMA GEORGE, WIDOW OF T.K.GEORGE, DO. DO. 3. SEENA T.GEORGE, C/O ACHAMMA GEORGE (MINOR) REP. BY ACHAMMA GEORGE, MOTHER GUARDIAN. 4. LEELAMMA CHACKO, POTTEDATHIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA P.O., KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. SANTHAMMA VARGHESE, ATTACHIRA PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM. ## 6. T.K.JOSEPH, THEKKEPLATHENATHU, MANARCADU, KOTTAYAM. 7. Dr.ALEX THOMAS, EYE SPECIALIST, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, GANDHINAGAR, RESIDING AT MATTEETHARA HOUSE, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM. 8. V.P.KURUVILA, THEKIL HOUSE, AMAYANNOOR, MANARCADU. 9. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., KOTTAYAM. 10. JOY, KOMARAKODATHU, AMAYANNOOR, MANARCADU (DRIVER OF JEEP). 11. C.CJOSEPH, VADAKKE ENACHIRAYIL, KAPPUMTHALA, KADUTHURUTHY, BY ADV. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA SRI.V.G.ARUN. SRI.T.P.VARGHESE SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2608/2000 IN MFA 430/2000 ## DISMISSED 31.7.2007 SD/-J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/-K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE ## /TRUE COPY/ J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.F.A.No. 430 of 2000 --------------------------------- ## **JUDGMENT** Koshy, J. The legal representatives of a motor accident victim applied for compensation. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle insured with the appellant Insurance Company and awarded Rs.96,000/- with interest as total compensation. That award is challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have directed them to pay only Rs.50,000/- as there was limitation of liability. Exhibit B4 policy is an Act Policy. The accident occurred on 27.10.1980 during the currency of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Limitation of liability was mentioned in Exhibit B4 policy and therefore, the owner and the driver are liable to pay the balance amount of compensation and not the Insurance Company, as MFA 430/00 2 their liability is limited to Rs.50,000/- with corresponding interest. The present impugned order was passed after remand by this Court. The original application was filed in 1981. Exhibit B4 policy was produced by the Insurance Company only in 1997. The Insurance Company failed to produce the documents at the initial stages and filed the written statement only on 3.10.1997, contending that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the liability of the company is limited to Rs.50,000/-. 2. It is well settled law that it is for the Insurance Company to plead the prove the defences. But, this Court, while remanding the matter, directed the Tribunal to consider the same also. The Tribunal held that even though there was limitation of liability under Exhibit B4 policy, since the Insurance Company produced the documents and filed written statement only after 1 ½ decades, after the specified period, the claimants/ MFA 430/00 3 dependants of the poor victim cannot be denied the benefit and cannot be asked to run after the owner, etc. Therefore, the Insurance Company has to deposit the compensation amount. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in ## **British Indian General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay** **v. Smt.Maya Banerjee** (AIR 1986 SC 2110). In that case the Supreme Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the same in view of the delay. In this case, the accident occurred on 27.10.1980. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the insurance policy was produced and the written statement was filed only in 1997, stating that there is limitation of liability. But, the owner did not produce the policy. In the above circumstances, on the facts of this case and considering the long delay in producing the documents, the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the compensation amount and recover the same from the insured and the driver, in excess of the amount of Rs.50,000/- with MFA 430/00 4 interest. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed. **==> picture [186 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [120 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [220 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** tkv MFA 430/00 5 J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------M.F.A.No. 430 of 2000 --------------------------------- **JUDGMENT** 31[st] July, 2007