IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 767 of 2004() ---------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21/01/2004 IN OPMV.1329/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA) .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN O.P(MV): -------------------------------------------------- SUNIL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, ESHNAPILLIL HOUSE, KAYANAD, OORAMANA (P.O). BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.MANJU SUDHISH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN O.P(MV): ------------------------------------------- 1. P.S.PAUL, PARACKAL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBACKER, S/O. KADER, NELLIMATTATHIL, MULAVOOR KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 4. BAWA, S/O. IBRAHIM, AKATHUTTU VEETTIL, PARIKANNY KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN FOR R1 SRI.M.P.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 976 OF 2004, THE COURT ON 11/08/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos.767 of 2004 & 976 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected appeals, one filed by the Insurance Company and the other by the claimant, are against the same award. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and those appearing for the owner and driver of the vehicle that caused the accident. 3. The claim of the Insurance Company is that it is not liable because the owner of the vehicle at the time of taking policy did not disclose to the Insurance Company that the vehicle is a tourist taxi. Learned counsel has also relied on Section 149(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that the claim under the policy can be dishonoured by the Insurance Company. However, we find that the accident was on 24/01/1999 when the vehicle was a private car. In fact, permit was taken only on 08/09/2000 and so much so the Insurance Company cannot disown liability. Moreover, M.A.C.A.Nos.767 & 976/2004 -2- the claim is made by a third party and not passenger of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, i.e. M.A.C.A.No.976/2004, is dismissed. 4. So far as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned, the prayer is for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel has contended that the claimant who was employed abroad had to wait here for one year to rejoin there. However, we do not find any tenable evidence to prove that the claimant was disabled for one year from joining duty. We also notice that reasonable compensation under various heads is awarded for the injury sustained by him. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the MACT. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimant i.e.M.A.C.A.No.767/2004 is also dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg