Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU @ K.P.YOHANNAN, AMPAZHAVELIL versus E.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BABU @ K.P.YOHANNAN, AMPAZHAVELIL v. E.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI - MFA No. 449 of 2002 [2007] RD-KL 13083 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 449 of 2002()

1. BABU @ K.P.YOHANNAN, AMPAZHAVELIL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. E.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI,
... Respondent

2. M/S.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.,

For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)

For Respondent :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

........................................... M.F.A .No. 449 OF 2002 ............................................

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2007



JUDGMENT

First respondent in O.P(MV) 1075 of 1993 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant. First respondent is the claimant and second respondent, the insurer. As per award dated 17.12.1997, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.8400/- with interest, to first respondent/claimant. The rider cum owner of motor cycle KRY 1618 which caused the accident was directed to pay the compensation holding that as he was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident, second respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured as there was violation of policy conditions. It is being challenged in this appeal contending that appellant was having a valid driving license at that time but he could not produce it before the Tribunal as the counsel who was engaged by him did not contest the case and in such circumstances the award as against him is to be set aside.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and second respondent Insurance Company were heard. Appellant has made available the original of the driving license, copy of which was MFA 449/2002 2 produced along with the appeal, for persual of learned counsel appearing for second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for second respondent, on going through the original driving license, fairly submitted that appellant was having valid driving license on the date on which the accident occurred. In such circumstances finding of the tribunal that there was violation of policy conditions and insurer second respondent is not liable to indemnify appellant is not sustainable and is to be set aside. Appeal is allowed. Award passed by MACT, Pathanamthitta in O.P MV 1075 of 1993 is modified holding that second respondent insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Second respondent is to deposit the compensation amount as awarded by the MACT within one month from today, if not already deposited.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.