Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Muhammed Aslam P on 18 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
2025:KER:60778
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 152 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.06.2019 IN OP(MV) NO.975 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, VV COMPLEX,
CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-679322, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 MUHAMMED ASLAM P.,
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDALI P., PARAPURAYAN HOUSE, KATTUPARA,
CHELAKKAD P.O., PULAMANTHOLE VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679323.
2 ABDUL KADHER,
S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, PANAMKULAM HOUSE, KOPPAM
VILLAGE, MANNENGODE P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679307.
3 JISHNU,
S/O. SUMATHI, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHAYANELLIPURAM,
THIRUVENGAPPURA P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
2025:KER:60778
2
DISTRICT-679304.
4 DILEEP E.,
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, ERAKKUTH HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE
P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679323.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
SHRI.ALEN J. CHERUVIL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR FINAL HEARING ON 12.8.2025, THE COURFT ON 18.08.2025,
ALONG WITH CO.55/2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
2025:KER:60778
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
CO NO. 55 OF 2022
MACA NO.152 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CROSS OBJECTOR/1ST RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED ASLAM .P
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMEDALI P., PARAPURAYAN HOUSE, KATTUPARA,
CHELAKKAD P.O., PULAMANTHOLE VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679323
BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4:
1 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, V V COMPLEX,
CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA POST, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-679322, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M G ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
2 ABDUL KADHER
S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE CROSS
OBJECTOR, PANAMKULAM HOUSE, KOPPAM VILLAGE,
MANNENGODE P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679307
3 JISHNU
M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
2025:KER:60778
4
S/O.SUMATHI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE CROSS OBJECTOR,
PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHAYANELLIPURAM, THIRUVEGAPPURA
P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679304
4 DILEEP E
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE CROSS
OBJECTOR, ERAKKUTH HOUSE, PULAMANTHOL POST,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679323
BY ADV SMT.K.S.SANTHI
THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 12.8.2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025, ALONG WITH
MACA.152/2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
2025:KER:60778
5
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the fourth respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No.975/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 21/06/2019. The first respondent herein, the claim petitioner, has filed the cross objection seeking enhancement. In this appeal and cross objection, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 21/12/2015 at 12 noon, when he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-53/A-4990 ridden by the first respondent from the place by M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 6 name Edappalam to Moorkkanad and when they reached Edappalam bridge, due to the rash and negligent driving of the latter, the motorcycle hit the bridge, thereby he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹9,35,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. First respondent/rider and third respondent/ insured though entered appearance, did not file any written statement. Hence they were set ex parte by the Tribunal.
4. The fourth respondent/insurer filed written statement denying all the allegations in the petition. It was contended that the policy was a liability only policy and hence would not cover the pillion rider. It was also contended that the first respondent/rider had no driving licence and so there was breach of policy conditions. The manner in which the incident occurred, age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were disputed. Compensation M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 7 claimed under various heads was contended to be excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 policy was marked on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 disability certificate was also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found that the accident was due to the negligence of the first respondent/rider and hence, awarded an amount of ₹3,29,500/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. The fourth respondent has been given the right of recovery from the third respondent. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal and cross objection is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 8
8. Heard both sides.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent/insurer that Ext.B1 policy is an 'Act only Policy' and that no additional premium has been paid and so, the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured regarding the injuries caused to the claim petitioner, a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have completely exonerated the fourth respondent/insurer from the liability. However, the Tribunal erroneously directed the fourth respondent/insurer to indemnify the insured and then recover the amount from the third respondent/insured. This is against settled precedents. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictums in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh, (2006)4 SCC 404. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner relying on the dictums in Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Saju P.Paul, 2013 KHC 4013 : (2013)2 SCC 41 ; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 9 2017 KHC 6151 : (2017)4 SCC 796 and an un-reported decision of a Single Bench of this Court dated 25/10/2019 in M.A.C.A.No.204/2016 (K.Balasubramaniyam v. Mohana Krishnan S.), that there is no infirmity in the liberty given by the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
10. A similar argument as advanced on behalf of the claim petitioner herein was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul, 2021(5) KLT SN 4 (C.No.4). Relying on the dictums in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003)2 SCC 223 and Tilak Singh (Supra) it was held that, a Statutory Policy or Act only Policy covers death or bodily injury of a third party falling within the sweep of Section 147 of the Act and where additional premium has not been paid to cover others, it can only be held that a gratuitous passenger would not be covered by an 'Act only Policy'. Referring to the dictums of the Apex Court in Saju P.Paul (Supra) and M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 10 Manuara Khatun (Supra), it was held that the Apex Court in the peculiar facts of the said cases, despite the fact that the victims were gratuitous passengers, directed the insurer to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased and then recover the amount from the insured, which direction was given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The said power cannot be exercised by the High Court and hence the dictum of a three Judge Bench in Asha Rani (Supra) as well as the dictum in Tilak Singh (Supra) were relied on and it was held that a gratuitous passenger is not covered by an 'Act only Policy'. I fully concur with the findings and conclusions of the learned single Judge in Daisy Paul (Supra), which dictum answers the rival arguments raised in the case on hand.
11. Admittedly, Ext.B1 policy is an 'Act only Policy' and no additional premium had been paid. That being the position, the fourth respondent/insurer has no liability to indemnify the insured. Hence, the fourth respondent/insurer is exonerated of the liability. M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 11 The claim petitioner can recover the amount from respondents 1 to 3 who are the rider, owner and insured respectively of the offending vehicle, who are jointly and severally liable. Cross Objection No.55 of 2022
12. The cross objection has been filed by the claim petitioner seeking enhancement of the amounts awarded under various heads by the Tribunal. On going through the impugned Award, I find that reasonable and just compensation has been awarded under all heads, except 'compensation for loss of amenities', for which no amount is seen granted. An amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an amount of ₹20,000/- can be awarded under this head.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal (in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss & partial 2,40,000/- 60,000/- 60,000/-
loss of earnings (No modification) M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 12 2. Transport to 25,000/- 2,250/- 2,250/- hospital (No modification) 3. Extra 30,000/- 10,200/- 10,200/- nourishment (No modification) 4. Damage to 2,000/- 750/- 750/- clothing & (No modification) articles 5. Bystander 30,000/- 13,600/- 13,600/- expenses (No modification) 6. Medical 1,53,000/- 1,01,675/- 1,01,675/- expenses (No modification) 7 Compensation 70,000/- 35,000/- 35,000/- for pain & (No modification) suffering 8 Compensation 2,50,000/- 1,05,840/- 1,05,840/- for permanent 75,000/- (No modification) disability & loss of earning power 9 Compensation 25,000/- Nil 20,000/- for loss of amenities 10 Future 35,000/- Nil Nil treatment (No modification) Total 9,35,000/- 3,29,315/- 3,49,315/- (Rounded to (Rounded to 3,29,500/-) 3,49,500/-)
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The cross objection is M.A.C.A.No.152 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.55 of 2022 2025:KER:60778 13 partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded, by an amount of ₹20,000/- (total compensation = ₹3,49,500/- granted in appeal minus ₹3,29,500/- granted by the Tribunal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The claim petitioner can recover the amount from respondents 1 to 3 who are jointly and severally held liable.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/