Kerala High Court
Saly Tomy vs Josna on 21 August, 2025
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
1
2025:KER:61189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.01.2014 IN OP(MV) NO.141 OF
2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD KALPETTA
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS :-
1 SALY TOMY, AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.LATE TOMY, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHENNALODUPOST,
KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK,WAYANAD DISTRICT.
2 ABISHAY TOM (MINOR),S/O.LATE TOMY,
KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,CHENNALODU POST,
KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRITALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SALY
TOMY, W/O.LATE TOMY, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,
CHENNALODU POST KAVUMANNAMVILLAGE,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
3 ANNLIYA TOM (MINOR), D/O.LATE TOMY,
KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,CHENNALODU POST,
KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRITALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ANDNATURAL GUARDIAN
SALY TOMY, W/O.LATE TOMY,KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,
CHENNALODU POST, KAVUMANNAMVILLAGE,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
4 AKSHAY TOM (MINOR) S/O.LATE TOMY,
KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,CHENNALODU POST,
KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRITALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ANDNATURAL GUARDIAN
SALY TOMY, W/O.LATE TOMY, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,
CHENNALODU POST KAVUMANNAMVILLAGE,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
2
2025:KER:61189
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 :-
1 JOSNA, W/O.LATE BIJU ANTO, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE,
KAVUMANNAM POST, VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANADDISTRICT. PIN - 673 121.
2 ASIN ROSE BIJU (MINOR) D/O.LATE BIJU ANTO,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE,KAVUMANNAM POST, VYTHIRI
TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICTREPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN JOSNA,W/O.LATE BIJU ANTO,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMANNAMPOST,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PIN - 673 121
3 ANAS BIJU (MINOR) S/O.LATE BIJU ANTO PUTHENPURAKKAL
HOUSE,KAVUMANNAM POST, VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN JOSNAW/O.LATE BINJU ANTO, PUTHENPURAKKAL
HOUSE,KAVUMANNAM POST, VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 121.
4 ROSAMMA, AGED 67 YEARS
W/O.LATE AUGUSTIN AND MOTHER OF BIJU ANTO,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMANNAM POST,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PIN -673 121.
5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, PROMOD BUILDING, CHERUTTY ROAD,
KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673 001.
6 THRESSIAMMA, AGED 73 YEARS
W/O.LATE ANTONY K.A. AND MOTHER OF LATE
TOMY,KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHENNALODU POST,
KAVUMANNAMVILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD
DISTRICT,PIN - 673 121.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON 21.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
3
2025:KER:61189
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants in OP(MV)
No.141 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Wayanad. The respondents herein were the respondents before the
tribunal.
2. According to the claimants on 30.04.2010 at about 10.30 pm,
while the deceased Tomy was travelling in a jeep bearing registration
No.KL-12D-4000, it capsized and the deceased sustained severe
injuries and succumbed to them. The accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, who also died in
the accident. The legal heirs of the deceased Tomy approached the
tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹30,00,000/- .
3. Respondents 1 to 4 were the legal heirs of the driver of the
vehicle/deceased Biju Anto. The 5th respondent was the insurer of the
offending jeep. The 6th respondent is the mother of the deceased
Tomy, who is a legal heir of the deceased. Though respondents 1 to 3
entered the appearance, no written statement was filed. The 4th
respondent did not appear before the tribunal and was set ex parte.
Respondents 5 and 6 have filed written statements before the tribunal.
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
2025:KER:61189
The 5th respondent, insurer filed a written statement, admitting the
policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed by the
claimants. The 6th respondent filed a written statement contending
that she being the dependent mother was also entitled to get the
compensation. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13(s) were marked.
The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record,
awarded a sum of ₹44,46,540/- as compensation under different
heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realization, against the respondents 1-5 jointly and severally. The 5th
respondent being the insurer is liable only for an amount of
₹2,00,000/-. Challenging the finding of the tribunal limiting the
liability of the insurer to ₹2,00,000/-, the claimants have filed this
appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned
standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the
tribunal has awarded a total compensation of ₹44,46,540/- but had
limited the liability of the insurer company to ₹2,00,000/- being the
personal accident coverage as per the policy. The learned counsel
further contended that personal injury to the insured is also covered
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
2025:KER:61189
under the policy and therefore, the legal heirs are entitled to claim
compensation.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance
company submitted that Ext.A4 policy was a comprehensive policy but
not an Act only policy. The deceased, being the owner of the vehicle,
does not fall within the definition of a third party under the Act.
7. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
8. Admittedly, the owner/insured was the deceased in the motor
accident and his legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming
compensation. The Tribunal found that, since the owner himself was
the deceased, he could not be treated as a third party and therefore,
his legal heirs were not entitled to claim compensation. Ext.A4 policy
was a comprehensive policy. A copy of the said policy was handed over
to me by the learned counsel for the appellants. On a perusal of the
said copy of the policy, it is seen that the Personal Accident Cover
under Section III for owner - driver was limited to ₹2,00,000/-. Since
he was both the owner and the insured of the vehicle, the liability of
the insurance company extended only to indemnifying the insured
against claims by third parties or in respect of damage to property.
Thus, the liability of the insurance company is only to indemnify the
MACA NO. 3411 OF 2014
2025:KER:61189
owner of the vehicle. Since the deceased himself was the owner, and
the liability of the insurance company extends only to third parties,
his legal heirs are not entitled to any compensation for the death.
Since the personal accident coverage is limited to ₹2,00,000/- under
the contract of the insurance company, the legal heirs are entitled
only for the amount of ₹2,00,000/- towards compensation. Therefore,
I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the
tribunal.
Accordingly, this appeal will stand dismissed.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SMA
