IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 372 of 2000 ---------------------------- MVOP.1032/1993 of M.A.C.T.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, THRID PARTY CLAIMS CELL, IV- VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, JOSE JUNCTION, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MAHESWARI AMMA, W/O. THULASEEDHARAN ASAN, RESIDING AT VAISAKH, UDIYANKULANGARA, NADOORKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. T. RAJEEV, S/O. LATE THULASEEDHARAN ASAN, (MINOR), -DO- 3. T. VINOD, S/O. LATE THULASEEDHARAN ASAN, (MINOR), -DO- 4. DEVAKI AMMA, SARADA AMMA, SREEJA SADANAM, KOOVALASSERI, MARANALLOOR. 5. BADARUDEEN IQBAL, JAHAN NIVAS, POZHIYOOR, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 6. R. RETNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT ALAKA AMARAVILA VIA NEYYATTINKARA. M.F.A NO. 372/2000 A 7. BHARATHI AMMA, BHARATHI SADANAM, AMARAVILA VIA, NEYYATTINKARA (DIED) 8. *B. SAROJAM, ARUN NIVAS, UDIYANKULANGARA, AMARAVILA -DO- ( *EXPIRED) 9. B. LEELA, BHARATHI SADANAM OF -DO- 10. B. VASANTHA, SAJEEV, MANDIRAM, UDIYANKULANGARA AMARAVILA. 11. B. CHANDRIKA, SREE GOVINDA BHAVAN, PANDARAVILAKOM ESTATE P.O., PAPPANAM CODE. 12. K. RAVEENDRAN, BHARATHI SADANAM UDIYANKULANGARA, AMARAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. 13. B.K. VIJAYAKUMAR, -DO- *(THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF 8TH RESPONDENT NEED NOT BE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS IN THE APPEAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 27/05/08 IN I.A.1147 OF 2008.) ADV. SRI.K.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R4 SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R4 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R9 - 13 SRI.P.R.VENKETESH. SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008 ALONG WITH MFA NO. 601 OF 2000, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 2268/2000 IN MFA NO. 372/2000. DISMISSED 27/05/2008. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. True copy Tga J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.Nos.372 & 601 OF 2000 ------------------------------------- Dated 27th May, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A man aged 46 died in a motor accident on 16.2.1989 at 7 p.m.. He was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KBT 1342 which was hit by a trucker bearing registration No.KEV 5718 driven by the second respondent. His widow and two minor children filed application for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/=. Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,52,500/= with interest and costs. Tribunal directed the insurance company to deposit the entire amount of compensation and recover it from the insured. Insurance company filed M.F.A.No.372 of 2000 and the first respondent who was the registered owner of the trucker filed M.F.A.No.601 of 2000. 2. It is the contention of the insurance company that premium paid for third party liability was only Rs.240/= and their liability was limited to Rs.50,000/=. The policy was produced. Officer of the insurance company was examined and Tribunal also found that there is limitation of liability of Rs.50,000/= as per the policy. The insurance company also contended that driver of the motor vehicle had no valid MFA.372 & 601 of 2000 2 driving licence and there was violation of policy conditions. Tribunal accepted that contention also after considering the evidence. In fact, the police officer who conducted investigation also deposed that second respondent driver had no driving licence at the time of accident. Even though those points urged by the insurance company were found in favour of the insurance company, they were directed to deposit the entire amount and that is questioned by the insurance company. We note that liability of the insurance company in the policy was only to pay Rs.50,000/=. In any event, insurance company cannot be asked to deposit more than Rs.50,000/=. With regard to the violation of policy conditions, even under the old Act, Supreme Court has held that insurance company can be directed to deposit the amount and recover it from the insured. But, in this case, liability of the insurance company is only Rs.50,000/=. Therefore, insurance company can be asked to deposit only Rs.50,000/= with proportionate interest. Because of the violation of the policy conditions, insurance company can recover the amount from the insured. 3. Contention of the appellant in M.F.A.No.601 of 2000 is that she has transferred the vehicle to second respondent, but, the fact that she was the registered owner at the time of accident is not disputed. The Supreme Court in Dr.T.V.Jose v. Chacko P.M. (AIR 2001 SC 3939) held that despite the change of ownership, registered MFA.372 & 601 of 2000 3 owner will continue to be liable to the third parties. Therefore, her contention that in view of the transfer of the vehicle to the second respondent she should be exonerated cannot be accepted. Therefore, M.F.A.No.601 of 2000 is liable to be dismissed. Of course, if she has transferred the vehicle after receiving amount, she will be free to recover the amount of compensation from the transferee according to law. In the result, Rs.50,000/= should be deposited by the insurance company after deducting any amount already paid, if any, with proportionate interest and costs as ordered by the Tribunal. After depositing the amount, insurance company is free to recover the same, in execution of the award, from the insured. Balance amount of compensation can be recovered from the first and second respondents, registered owner and driver, jointly and severally. M.F.A.No.372 of 2000 is disposed of with the above observations and M.F.A.No.601 of 2000 is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks