IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 152 of 2007(D) ----------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.266/1995 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/ 1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- PRASANTH KUMAR, S/O.SUSEELAN NAIR, MUTHALAPPALLIL VEEDU, AKAMKUDY MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT VETTUKULANJIYIL GREESHMA, EZHIKKAKATHU JUNCTION, HARIPAD. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI, ADV. SRI.N.JOHN SAM. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS AND IIND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SOMAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHAKKANATHU VEEDU, VETTUVENI MURI, PALLIPPADU VILLAGE, HARIPAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SREEKANTH, S/O.SOMAN (MINOR) OF DO. DO., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND 1ST RESPONDENT. 3. THE OREINTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH ERNAKULAM, PALLIMUKKU ROAD, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN - R2, ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER - R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 152 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in O.P.(MV)266/95. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.19,500/-. The insurance company has been exonerated from the liability and the owner, namely the first respondent is directed to deposit the amount. The owner has came up in appeal. The point that arises for determination in the appeal is that as per the policy issued admittedly the period is from 1.12.93 to 30.12.94. The accident had taken place on 6.12.94 and so if it is to be taken into consideration there is a valid policy and therefore the insurance company is bound to pay the amount. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that even the proposal was only for a period of one year from 1.12.93 to 30.11.94 and it was only by a mistake it was written as upto 30.12.94. The learned counsel for the M.A.C.A. 152 OF 2007 -:2:- insurance company would contend being an error and as the proposal itself is for a period of one year, the insurance company would not be saddled with the liability. In ordinary circumstances, all policies are issued only for one year but in a situation like this where the company issues policy showing the specific date as 30.12.94 one cannot attribute any mistake on the other side to have not renewed the policy for the reason that the validity of the policy is there up to 30.12.94. If a mistake had taken place that mistake should have been rectified within a reasonable time so that the owner should have been intimated about the period of policy. Unfortunately in this case nothing has taken place and only after the accident everything comes to the lime light and at that stage it has become a belated attempt. The insurance is issued in favour of a person for a definite period and during the period of that contract no steps had been taken to annul it or rectify it. Then one has to hold that the insurance company cannot take a shelter by contending that it is only valid up to a particular period and not thereafter for the M.A.C.A. 152 OF 2007 -:3:- reason the proposal is only for the said period. Further, it has to be stated there has been no mis-representation or fraud committed by the insurer in the case to obtain policy of that nature and therefore he has held the policy openly believing that his vehicle is covered up to the definite period namely 30.12.94. Therefore I do not agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal on that point and hold that the insurance company has to pay the liability. Therefore the MACA is allowed and the finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent therein in the O.P. has to pay compensation is set aside and I direct the insurance company, 2nd respondent to pay the amount as ordered by the Court. If any amount is deposited by the appellants for the purpose of filing this appeal let it be reimbursed to him. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-