Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Nisha Mol on 18 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
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. 457 OF 2020
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 23.05.2019 IN OP(MV)
NO.426 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, V.V.COMPLEX,
CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
BY ADV SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER,1ST RESPONDENT & SUPPL.3RD
RESPONDENT:
1 THOMAS
S/O. MATHAI, CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE,
AMMINIKKAD P. O., THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322.
2 SUBIN THOMAS C.
S/O. THOMAS C.M., CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE,
AMMINIKKAD P.O., THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322.
3 MATHEWKUTTY
S/O. KURIAKOSE, PALLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VADAPURAM P.O., MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676542.
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
2
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI
SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SMT.ELSA DENNY PINDIS
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 12.8.2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025, ALONG
WITH MACA.490/2020 AND 653/2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
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
MACA NO. 490 OF 2020
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 23.05.2019 IN OP(MV)
NO.428 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE, V.V.COMPLEX, CALICUT ROAD,
MALAPPURAM,PERINTHALMANNA-679322,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
BY ADV SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, 1ST RESPONDENT, SUPPL.3RD
RESPONDENT:
1 SHIBIN C.I.
(MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS)
S/O.ISAC MATHEW, CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE,
AMMINIKKAD P.O., THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322, REP. BY HIS FATHER AND
GUARDIAN ISAC MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI,
CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., THAZHEKODE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.
2 SUBIN THOMAS C.,
S/O.THOMAS C.M., CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE,
AMMINIKKAD P.O., THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.
3 MATHEWKUTTY,
S/O.KURIAKOSE, PALLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAPURAM
P.O., MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676542.
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
4
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI
SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SMT.ELSA DENNY PINDIS
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 12.8.2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025, ALONG
WITH MACA.457/2020 AND 653/2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
5
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. 653 OF 2020
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 23.05.2019 IN OP(MV)
NO.429 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, V.V.COMPLEX, CALICUT ROAD,
PERINTHALMANNA-679322 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
MANAGER.
BY ADV SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, 1ST RESPONDENT AND SUPPL.3RD
RESPONDENT:
1 NISHA MOL
D/O.ISAC MATHEW, CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE,
AMMINIKKAD P.O., THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.
2 SUBIN THOMAS.C,
S/O.THOMAS C.M., CHIRATTOLIKKAL HOUSE,
AMMINIKKAD P.O., THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.
3 MATHEWKUTTY,
S/O.KURIAKOSE, PALLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VADAPURAM P.O., MAMBAD,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676542.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI
SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
6
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SMT.ELSA DENNY PINDIS
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 12.8.2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025, ALONG
WITH MACA.457/2020 AND 490/2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
7
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent/insurer in
O.P.(MV) Nos.426, 428 and 429 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the
Award dated 23/05/2019. The first respondent in all the appeals are
the claim petitioners. In these appeals, the parties and the
documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.
2. According to the claim petitioners, on 16/07/2015 at
about 09:15 a.m., while they were travelling in jeep bearing
registration no.KL-10/AD-2841 driven by the first respondent from
the place by name Kodikuthimala to Amminikkad and when they
reached Kodikuthimala, the jeep skidded from the road as a result of
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
which, they sustained grievous injuries.
3. The second respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle
filed written statement denying liability.
4. The third respondent/insured in addition to the contention
raised by the second respondent/insurer, contended in his written
statement that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle.
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 in O.P.(MV)No.426/2016 ; Exts.A8 to A11 were marked
on the side of the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.428/2016 and
Exts.A12 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner in
O.P.(MV)No.429/2016. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of
the respondents. Exts.X1 and X2 were 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/owner cum driver.
Hence awarded an amount of ₹2,25,000/- in O.P.
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
(MV)No.426/2016 ; ₹1,52,000/- in O.P.(MV)No.428/2016 and
₹10,500/- in O.P.(MV)No.429/2016 together with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. The insurer has been given the liberty to
recover the amount from the owner. Aggrieved, the second
respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in these
appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the
Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the second
respondent/insurer that Ext.B1 policy is an 'Act only Policy' and as
no additional premium has been paid, the insurer cannot be held
liable to indemnify the insured regarding injuries caused to the
claim petitioners, who are gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal
ought to have completely exonerated the second respondent/insurer
from the liability. However, the Tribunal erroneously directed the
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
second respondent/insurer to pay the amount to the claim petitioners
and then recover the amount from the first respondent/owner. 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 and New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul, 2021(5) KLT SN 4 (C.No.4).
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioners relying on the dictum in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh
Kr. Singh, 2017 KHC 6151 : (2017)4 SCC 796 that the Tribunal
has rightly given the said liberty to the insurer and there is no
infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
10. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Daisy Paul
(Supra) has considered a similar issue. 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
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
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 Manuara Khatun (Supra), it was held that the
Apex Court in the peculiar facts in the said cases, despite the fact
that the victims were gratuitous passengers, directed the insurer to
pay the compensation to the dependents of the deceased and then
recover the amount from the insured. However, the said directions
were given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which
powers cannot be exercised by the High Court. I fully concur with
the findings and conclusions of the learned single Judge in Daisy
Paul (Supra).
11. In the case on hand, Ext.B1 policy is admittedly an 'Act
only Policy'. There are no materials on record to show that
additional premium had been paid by the insured. That being the
position, in the light of the aforesaid dictums, it can only be held
that the second respondent/insurer cannot be held liable to
M.A.C.A.No.457, 490 and 653 of 2020
2025:KER:61038
indemnify the insured, that is, first to pay the claim petitioners and
then to recover it from the first respondent/owner. Therefore, the
appeals are allowed and the direction given by the Tribunal in the
impugned Award giving liberty to the second respondent/insurer to
realise the amount from the first respondent/owner cum driver is set
aside. The second respondent/insurer is exonerated from the
liability. The claim petitioners can recover the amount from the
first respondent/owner cum driver of the offending vehicle.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ami/
