IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 2411 of 2009 -------------------------------------- OPMV.914/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT: 3rd RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEYYATTINKARA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RATNAKARAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, S.R.M. HOUSE, THEMPAMMOODU, PULLAMPARA P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THANKAPPAN ASARY, S/O. APPU ASARY, THOKKALAKKUZHY, MELETHIL VEEDU, PULLAMPARA P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R2 & R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2411 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of June 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to indemnify the owner/insured of the vehicle on the appellant/insurance company. 2. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed: 3. A jeep belonging to the Police Department was involved in the accident in question. Respondent No.1 herein, who suffered serious injuries in the accident, claimed compensation on account of those injuries. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that respondent No.1 was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,09,253/- with interest. 4. While considering the question of liability, the Tribunal noticed that the appellant/insurance Company had issued an “Act only” policy in respect of the vehicle. In other words, admittedly, the policy did not cover the passengers in the jeep. Nevertheless the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the appellant/insurance company would be liable to indemnify the owner/insured in as much as the company knew that it was a departmental vehicle to be used to carry Police personnel and the company cannot contend for the position that the passengers in the jeep (police personnel) would not be covered by the policy. The reasoning of the Tribunal was that since the insurer knew the purpose for which the vehicle had been purchased by the department, the policy issued by the company should be construed to cover the risk of the passengers, namely, the police personnel. M.A.C.A.No.2411 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. We are afraid the above finding entered by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable. As has been mentioned earlier, there is no dispute that the policy issued by the appellant in respect of the vehicle in question is only an “Act only” policy. No additional premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the passengers in the said vehicle. In that view of the matter, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to indemnify the insured. 6. The above claim petition was disposed of along with three other claim petitions. The claimants are admittedly police constables. It is brought to our notice that in respect of the award passed in two cases (MACA 2412/09 & 2428/09), this court has allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company and exonerated it from the liability. In that view of the matter also, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is made clear that it will be open to respondent No.1/claimant to realise the amount from respondents 2 and 3. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the insurance company, if it has not already been disbursed. The appeal is allowed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes