(1.) This appeal is filed questioning the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, passed in O.S. No. 63 of 1989. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent herein.
(2.) The above suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 58,271/- from the respondent / defendant, for carrying out repairs in the appellants vehicle (bus), KRZ 2124 on 10.3.1988. The above bus, which has been insured with the respondent, met with an accident near Chittariparamba, while it was proceeding from Thalassery to Peravoor, as a result of which the passengers traveled in the bus sustained injuries and the bus also was heavily damaged. As per the terms of the Insurance Policy, the appellant has to be indemnified by the respondent.
(3.) The defendant / respondent controverted the above averments of the appellant on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the insured, namely, the appellant must first refer the dispute to an arbitrator, before approaching the Court. In this case, it was not done by the appellant. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. The suit is barred by limitation, since it is not filed within a period of twelve months. The vehicle, covered by a stage carriage permit had to ply in a particular route and however it was taken through a diverted route on the date of accident and the accident occurred in the diverted route and therefore, there is a violation of route permit. The bus ought to have reached Peravoor at 7.35 P.M.. as per the permit, but, as a matter of fact, it met with an accident in the mid - night of that day on the way to Peravoor. Therefore, there is also a violation of the route - permit. One another condition of the Insurance Policy is that the vehicle can carry only 51 passengers exclusive of the driver and conductor. But at the time of the accident, there were more than 90 passengers travelling in the bus. On account of the above irregularities, the appellant is not entitled to compensation.