IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6857 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOSEPH THERMADAM, THERMADAM HOUSE, CHEMBUTHARA, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE,28/6177 KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SMARAK, IIND FLOOR, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2. OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2ND FLOOR, CC 27/2603, PULINAT BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6857/2007 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BOOK. P2: COPY8 OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY. P3: COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY NO.570700/1999/6102905. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO THE COMPLAINANT 08/03/2001. P5: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 16/03/2001. P6: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 16/03/2001. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.10435/01 DTD. 22/07/2002. P8: COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NO.570700/2000/6104441. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.10435/01 DTD. 22/07/2002. P8: COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NO.570700/2000/6104441. P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 20/09/2001 ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC UNIT, ALUVA. P10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.003566 DTD. 11/10/2001 ISSUED BY TVS. P11: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.003892 DTD. 30/10/2001 ISSUED BY TVS. P12: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.004016 DTD. 02/11/2001 ISSUED BY TVS. P13: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 15/12/2004. P14: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. P15: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/04/2006. P16: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/05/2005. P17: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN. P18: COPY OF THE AWARD NO.10/KCH/G1/54/2005-06 DTD. 08/11/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 6857 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the owner of a registered taxi car in respect of which he has paid motor vehicles tax for 15 years by availing of the subsidy available to taxi cars. He had a policy with the 1st respondent - Insurance Company in respect of the said vehicle. In the same, the policy is shown as one for a private car and not for a taxi car. During the currency of the policy, in an accident, the motor car was damaged. The petitioner claimed insurance amount. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the policy was for a private car. The petitioner approached this court. By Ext.P7 judgment, this court relegated the petitioner to other remedies. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent with Ext.P17 complaint, which was rejected by Ext.P18 order, accepting the contention of the 1st respondent - Insurance Company that the policy was only W.P.(C)No. 6857 of 2007 -2- for a private car and therefore the petitioner's claim for a taxi car is not maintainable. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P18 order. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P18 award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman; b) Declare that the petitioner entitled and eligible to get compensation as claimed in Ext.P17 complaint. c) Declare that the owner of vehicles holding driving license is eligible to drive his car and taxi badge is necessary only while taking passengers in the taxi car. d) Declare that the insurance benefits due to the petitioner cannot be taken away on the ground that he has not holding the taxi badge.” I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the 1st respondent. Whether the petitioner's car is a taxi car or not, it is not disputed before me that Ext.P3 policy was only for a private car. It is also not disputed before me that the premium payable for an insurance policy in respect of a taxi car is higher than that for a private car. Ext.P3 is a private contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Both are bound by the terms of that contract. There is no question of reading into it what is not there. Perhaps if the petitioner had actually paid premium W.P.(C)No. 6857 of 2007 -3- applicable to a taxi car the petitioner's contention that the entry 'Private Car' in Ext.P3 is a mistake and it ought have been taxi car (motor cab). The petitioner has no such case. When Ext.P3 contract is strictly for a private car and the petitioner has not complied with the conditions applicable to a motor cab, I do not think that the petitioner can claim that the entry 'Private Car' in Ext.P3 is a mistake and it ought have been read as “motor cab”. If that be so, notwithstanding the reasons mentioned in Ext.P8, the petitioner cannot claim benefits other than in respect of Ext.P3 policy which is admittedly for a private car. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/