IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1766 of 2009() ----------------------------------- OPMV.852/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.852/04 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET,PADMA JUNCTION,KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. MR.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN OPMV. 852/04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THANKAMMA DIVAKARAN, W/O.DIVAKARAN, AGED 71 YEARS, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, 57TH MILE, VANDIPERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK. 2. SUJA PRAKASH, HARIKRISHNAN'S HOUSE, VETTIKATTU, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. VINOD, S/O.GOPI, PONGAMPARAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 1766 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2063/2009 IN MACA NO.1766/2009 DISMISSED 05/10/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1766 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in OP(MV)No.852/2004. The claimant had been awarded a compensation of Rs.23,500/= directing the insurance company to pay the amount. The claimant was a passenger in a Qualis car. 2. The point that arises for determination is whether the insurance company is liable on account of the fact that there has been material suppression of fact at the time of taking the policy. Ext.B1 is the certified copy of the policy issued to the vehicle which was insured as a private car and it was a package policy. Ext.B2 is the permit issued to the vehicle and it was valid from 3.12.2001 till 21.12.2006. The Tribunal has very clearly observed that it seems from the document on record that the vehicle was registered as a LMV contract carriage but was insured as a private vehicle. So, the vehicle by virtue of the permit has been operating as a public vehicle rather a transport vehicle which : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1766 OF 2009 requires enhanced premium. But what the owner of the vehicle had done is to register the vehicle as a transport vehicle and taking a policy as a private vehicle. I may say that the insurance company also should be careful when they issue policies and they must at least refer to some documents before the issuance of the policy. So, from the materials available, the vehicle is only a private vehicle whereas it is used as a public carriage and evidently there is suppression of material facts at the time of taking the policy which amounts to a void contract between the insurer and the insured and therfore the insurance company cannot be liable for making the payment. The Tribunal has not discussed this issue at all. It is reported in George P. varghese v. Daniel (1998 (1) KLT 42) that when a policy is obtained by non disclosure of material facts, the company is not liable to pay the compensation. In the light of this proposition of law, no further evidence is necessary and the only thing to be done is to exonerate the insurance company from the liability and to direct the claimant to get the amount from the first respondent. Disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1766 OF 2009