UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JAIMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Insurance Company came up before us after its admission to consider the application for stay in the shape of C.M.P. 1163 of 1997. Hearing the learned counsel we decided to hear the appeal on merits. This was in view of determination as to whether the appellant insurance company can avoid liability on the ground as pleaded that there is no valid driving licence. We considered the factual matrix also with the help of the record and proceedings before us.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, we would like to record has shown her forensic ability and competence not only in regard to placing before us all necessary details of the factual matrix, but the learned counsel has taken pains to place before us all the relevant decisions, both of this court as well as of the apex court in the context. We consider that we would fail in our duty not to acknowledge and appreciate the labours of the counsel Mrs. P.A. Raziya. This is more so when the learned counsel for preparation persuaded us to accommodate her by postponing the hearing of the appeal not only on November 3, 1997, but also on November 5, 1997 and today we heard the counsel.

(3.) Initially, the necessary and relevant factual matrix would need a spread over. The incident occurred on October 30, 1992 at about 7.30 pm when the claimant was riding a cycle through Aluva - Munnar road to reach a place known as Thangalam. At this place a scooter - KL 7 - A - 1676 - undisputedly owned by one Jomy Paul (R1) and driven by one Kunjubava (R2) and insured with the appellant (R3) gave a dash and hit to the cycle. This was, it was averred, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter. The claimant was a student of commerce and in the process suffered in his studies apart from sustaining injuries. He was aged 19 years and claimed compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- in the petition before the M.A.C.T., Muvattupuzha.