IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 892 of 2004() ---------------------- (AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 21.12.2002 PASSED IN O.P.(M.V.) NO. 1838/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL) APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT --------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.MOHAMMED SALI, SAHANA MANZIL, PALLIMUKKU, ALAMCODE, ALAMCODE (P.O), ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAJU, S/O.SASIDHARAN, ROADUVILA VEEDU, NEAR THONIPPARA PHC, EDAYADI, POOTHAKKULAM (P.O), PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, 6TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING COMPLEX, CHENKALCHOOLA, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. RADHAMANI, W/O.LATE K.ANANDAN, PLAMOOTTIL MELATHIL VEEDU, NELLIMUGAL MUNDAPPALLIL, PERINADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/20069 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- MACA No. 892 of 2004 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J. Appellant was the applicant in OP(MV) 1838/1997 claiming compensation for the damages sustained to the car owned by him. He claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by way of damages. While the car owned by the appellant, proceeded from south to north from National Highway, a mini lorry on the opposite direction by overtaking another vehicle entered wrong side and hit the front of the car and the accident occurred attributing negligence on the part of the R2. R2 remained exparte and hence negligence was proved against R2 on the available evidence. The owner of the mini lorry was R1 in the Court below. The vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent resisted the claim contending that his liabilities limited to Rs.6,000/- as per the statute. 2. The short question that arise for consideration is as to the whether there is any wider coverage for making the 3rd respondent liable full damages as claimed in the application. The Court below found that only the statutory liability of amount Rs.6,000/- is to be paid by the MACA No. 892 of 2004 2 insurer R3, in the absence of any evidence to show that there is wider coverage for the full extent of damage sustained by the 3rd party. 3. PW4, the District Insurance Officer stated that though the offending vehicle had coverage for own damage and 3rd party property damage, he clarifies that full coverage for 3rd party property damage will be obtained only if required premium is paid by the insured. But in this case, the insured has paid only the premium for own damages. PW5, the Assistant Manager of New India Insurance Company would say that the reinsurance taken by Kerala State Insurance Department is only a comprehensive Policy. The policy is produced in this case. We perused the policy. It does not say that there is any wider coverage to cover 3rd party vehicle to the full extent. As per the provisions contained in Section 147 (2) (b), the 3rd party property damage to the vehicles is limited to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore unless the term of policy of insurance is extended beyond statutory liability, the insurance company cannot be held liable. The Court below found that on a true interpretation of the provision and after analyzing the evidence that there is a wider coverage as per the Policy issued in this case. The Court below found that a total amount of Rs.96,81,193/- with interest is liable to be paid out of which Rs.6,000/- is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company and the balance by the owner of the mini lorry. When a policy of insurance is issued, the term of which MACA No. 892 of 2004 3 are to be deducted from the document itself and not by any secondary evidence as per Section 93 of the Evidence Act. If so, finding of the Court below limiting the liability of the insurance to Rs.6,000/- is correct and does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc