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
2025:KER:60778
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
2025:KER:60778
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
2025:KER:60778
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
2025:KER:60778
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
2025:KER:60778
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
2025:KER:60778
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.
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
2025:KER:60778
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
2025:KER:60778
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/
