Kerala High Court
Jiju Anand Alias Jijo Anand vs Krishnan Asari on 8 July, 2025
2025:KER:49403
MACA No.1049/2014
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1049 OF 2014
OPMV NO.468 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
JIJU ANAND ALIAS JIJO ANAND
S/O.SADANANDAN,ANAND BHAVAN,
KAPPITHOTTAM,KURUPUZHA,ELAVATTOM PO
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
SRI.S.SURESH (VAMANAPURAM)
SMT.R.N.SAJITHA
SMT.SINDHU S KAMATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KRISHNAN ASARI, S/O.NATESAN ASARI,NATESH BHAVAN,
PIRAMANAMKATTUVILA,KANJIRACODE(PO),K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL
NADU STATE, PIN 629 155
2 RIJU SOMAN
S/O.SOMAN ARUNTHADI, PULIYOOR,PACHA (PO),PIN 695 562.
3 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH
OFFICE, ATTINGAL, PIN 695 101
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SHRI.JOY JOSEPH (MANAYATHU)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 03.06.2025, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49403
MACA No.1049/2014
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.468 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, against the dismissal of the claim petition. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.
2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 27.02.2005, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/B- 3439 along the Palode - Pacha public road, a Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-74/Z-988 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle ridden by the claimant, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 were the owner and rider respectively of the offending motorcycle. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the third respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition finding that the claimant failed to prove the accident. Challenging this, 2025:KER:49403 MACA No.1049/2014 ..3..
the claimant has come up in appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly challenged the finding of the tribunal that the claimant failed to prove the accident. It was submitted that the accident occurred due to the hit by the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-74/Z-988. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal erred in finding that the offending vehicle, which was a strong and more sturdy vehicle, could not have sustained heavy and extensive damages comparing to those sustained to the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/B-3439, ridden by the claimant. The learned counsel pointed out that the charge sheet was drawn against the rider of the Royal Enfield bearing Reg.No.TN-74/Z- 988 and the delay in reporting the occurrence was due to the fact that the appellant was under treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the learned counsel, since the charge sheet was drawn against the rider of the Royal Enfield, which was the offending vehicle, the tribunal could not have taken a different view that the injuries sustained to the appellant were not due to the hit by the Royal Enfield. It was further submitted that the documents as well as the evidence on record proved that the accident occurred due to the hit by 2025:KER:49403 MACA No.1049/2014 ..4..
the Royal Enfield against the motorcycle ridden by the appellant and hence, the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent riding on the part of the second respondent/rider of the Royal Enfield is unsustainable.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer, on the other hand, submitted that the tribunal has rightly found that though the accident occurred, it is not the Royal Enfield involved in the accident. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the appellant suppressed the real occurrence since the motorcycle of the appellant was not having a valid insurance as on the date of the accident and he colluded with the rider of the Royal Enfield in order to get a claim from the insurer of the Royal Enfield. It was further argued that the accident occurred on 27.02.2005, however, the FIR was only registered only on 10.03.2005, i.e., after 11 days of the accident, and even then, the offending vehicle was noted as "unidentified" by the police, which adds to the fact that the story narrated by the claimant in respect of the accident was not correct. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) also creates a doubt regarding the narration of the accident that the Royal Enfield, which is a more heavy and sturdy vehicle compared to the motorcycle ridden by the claimant, sustained more damages. Hence, 2025:KER:49403 MACA No.1049/2014 ..5..
he argued that the tribunal dismissed the claim petition after a proper appreciation of the entire evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.
7. The issue to be decided is whether the accident occurred due to the hit by the Royal Enfield on the motorcycle ridden by the claimant. The accident admittedly occurred on 27.02.2005, which is wrongly shown in the impugned award as 27.07.2005. It is true that the appellant, who was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/B-3439, sustained injuries in the accident. However, the alleged accident was reported after 11 days of occurrence, for which, no reason, whatsoever, has been stated in the claim petition. The claimant also did not mount the box to give evidence. Ext.X1 disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, assessing the appellant to have 7% disability. In the FIR, which was registered on 10.03.2005, the offending vehicle was noted as "unidentified". As per Ext.A3 vehicle mahazar, the following were the damages sustained to the Royal Enfield:
"(1) front crash-guard broken, (2) front mud-guard dented,(3) head-
light assembly broken, (4) mud-guard and brake lever broken and (5) indicator light broken."
2025:KER:49403 MACA No.1049/2014 ..6..
As per Ext.A4 series report of AMVI, the following were the damages sustained to the Royal Enfield:
"(1) fork assembly fully damaged, (2) head-light assembly broken, (3) front mud-guard dented, (4) left hand side indicator broken and (5) body casting near odometer and assembly light broken."
As per Ext.A3 vehicle mahazar, the following were the injuries sustained to the motorcycle ridden by the appellant:
"(1) front head-light broken fully, (2) indicator light broken and destructed and (3) crash-guard twisted."
8. In Ext.A4 series AMVI report dated 18.03.2005, it was specifically noted that the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN- 74/Z-988, cited as the offending vehicle, was found in such a damaged condition that it could not be removed from the place of accident. If, on 18.03.2005, the Royal Enfield was in a condition that it could not be removed from the place of accident, then a doubt arises as to why in the FIR, the vehicle was mentioned as one "unidentified". If both the motorcycles were lying at the place of occurrence, there is no reason for not identifying the offending vehicle by the police, which creates a doubt as regards the occurrence of the accident. It is true that the charge sheet was drawn against the Royal Enfield. That alone cannot be taken as conclusive evidence to arrive at a finding that the accident occurred due to the hit by the Royal Enfield on the motorcycle ridden by 2025:KER:49403 MACA No.1049/2014 ..7..
the appellant. Since the motorcycle ridden by the appellant was not having a valid insurance policy, a false complaint might have been registered attributing rash and negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the Royal Enfield. He could have mounted the box and given the best evidence regarding the incident that occurred on 27.02.2005. However, he did not choose to appear before the tribunal and give evidence. Even though there is a charge, if the other reports and factual circumstances reveal otherwise, the court need not solely rely on the charge sheet drawn against the rider/driver of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials on board, I find that this is a case where the Royal Enfield was falsely implicated in the accident in order to claim compensation from the insurer of the Royal Enfield. The tribunal has elaborately considered the issues on the basis of the documents produced before the tribunal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award of dismissal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-