Kerala High Court: Despite Violation of Insurance Policy Insurance Company Liable to Pay claimant & then Recover Compensation from Vehicle Owner

Kerala High Court: Despite Violation of Insurance Policy Insurance Company Liable to Pay claimant & then Recover Compensation from Vehicle Owner

The Kerala High Court while enhancing the compensation eligible to a man observed that since the vehicle was validly insured with the third respondent at the time of accident and even if insurance policy conditions were violated, insurance company was liable to compensate the claimant initially, and then to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.

The single judge Justice Sophy Thomas enhanced the compensation due to the appellant to the tune of Rs. 33,660/-.

The appellant accident victim had challenged the impugned the order passed by the Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, as well as for exonerating the Insurance Company (respondent 3) from indemnifying the insured who had suffered serious injuries while travelling in a goods auto rickshaw which was capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver (respondent 2).

The factual matrix of the case was that on 18 April, 2007, while the appellant was travelling in goods auto rickshaw, the vehicle capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent 2 and sustained serious injuries who had to be admitted in hospital for 30 days and expended considerable amount for his treatment.

He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- however, the Tribunal only awarded Rs.60,110/-.

The claimant urged before the Court that when he was travelling in the goods auto rickshaw as the owner and supplier of the Ayurvedic medicines, the cabin only had one driver seat which he was sharing with the driver as the owner and agent of the goods. Thus, when the auto rickshaw capsized, he was thrown out to the road and sustained injuries. He subsequently lodged an FIR on the date of the accident itself.

The Court stated that in the case of a three-wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat.

“No other person whether as a passenger or as an owner of the goods is supposed to share the seat of the driver. In such case, violation of the condition of the contract of insurance is approved.”

In the present case, admittedly the appellant was sharing the seat of the driver of a three-wheeler goods auto rickshaw. Thus, it clearly violated the policy condition. In such a case, it would be open to the insurer to recover the amount of compensation ordered to be paid to the claimants, from the insured, as laid down by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company vs. Suresh K.K.

However, the Court was of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company was liable to be exempted from compensating the injured, was liable to be set aside.

The Court observed, “Even if there is violation of the Policy conditions, since that vehicle is validly insured with the 3rd respondent at the time of accident, the Company was liable to compensate the claimant initially, and then to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.”

Apropos to the inadequate compensation as alleged by the appellant, the Court referred to the case of Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and sated that since his claim was only Rs.3,000/- per month, the Court was inclined to take his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- and thus, was eligible to get Rs.9,000/-.

Therefore, after deducting Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, he was entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.3,000/-.

The Court thus, held that the appellant was eligible to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.33,660.

The Insurer was accordingly directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account of appellant with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 112 days of delay in filing the appeal), within two months.