Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company vs Gopalakrishnan Nair on 21 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
1
2025:KER:63637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 783 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20/02/2020 IN OP(MV)NO.142 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA.
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 035,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
RESPONDENTS/ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 & RESPONDENT NO.1:
1 GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED 67 YEARS,
SON OF VASUDEVA KURUP,
VALIYASSERIL VEEDU, ALTHARA ROAD,
SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
2 RAKESH GOPAL,
AGED 35 YEARS,
SON OF GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
VALIYASSERIL VEEDU, ALTHARA ROAD,
SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
3 RAKHI GOPAL,
AGED 33 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
VALIYASSERIL VEEDU, ALTHARA ROAD,
SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
2
2025:KER:63637
4 GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED 67 YEARS,
SON OF VASUDEVA KURUP, VALIYASSERIL VEEDU,
ALTHARA ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
(DRIVER CUM OWNER OF CAR BEARING REGISTRATION
NO.KL-01/AB-3350).
BY ADV SMT.RESMY M.S
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 21.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.837/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
3
2025:KER:63637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 837 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20/02/2020 IN OP(MV)NO.141 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA.
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1:
1 HEMALATHA,
AGED 59 YEARS,
W/O. VIJAYA KUMAR, AMBAALAYAM VEEDU,
T.C. 15/398, ALATHARA ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
VELLAYAMBALAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.
2 GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O. VASUDEVA KURUP, VALIYASSERIL VEEDU,
ALTHARA ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VELLAYAMBALAM
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695010,
(DRIVER CUM OWNER OF CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.
KL-01/AB -3350.
BY ADV SMT.RESMY M.S
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 21.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.783/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
4
2025:KER:63637
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st 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.142 and 141 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award
dated 20/02/2020. The respondents in both the appeals are the claim
petitioners and first respondent respectively in the petitions. In these
appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in
the original petitions.
2. The claim petitioners in MACA No.783/2020 are the
legal heirs of the original claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.142/2020, who
died during the pendency of the petition. According to the claim
petitioners, on 29/08/2013 at about 05:45 a.m., while the original claim
petitioner and the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.141/2020 were
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
2025:KER:63637
travelling in car bearing registration no.KL-01-AB-3350 driven by the
first respondent through Kollam-Haripad National high way road and
when they reached near Cheppad junction, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the latter, the vehicle rammed the backside of lorry bearing
registration No.HR 55N 0771, as a result of which, they sustained
grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver remained ex
parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying liability.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A52 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioners. 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/owner-cum-driver. Hence awarded
an amount of ₹13,89,500/- in O.P.(MV)No.142/2015 and ₹5,17,000/- in
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
2025:KER:63637
O.P.(MV)No.141/2015 together with interest @ 8% 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 frist
respondent/owner-cum-driver. Aggrieved by the Award, 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 is 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 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 second respondent/insurer to pay the amount to the claim
petitioners and then recover the amount from the first respondent/owner-
cum-driver. This is against settled precedents. In support of the
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
2025:KER:63637
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).
10. The Tribunal relying on Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh
Kumar Singh, 2017 KHC 6151 : (2017) 4 SCC 796 directed the insurer
to first clear the liability towards the claim petitioner and then recover the
amount from the first respondent/owner/insured.
11. 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 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
M.A.C.A.Nos.783 and 837 of 2020
2025:KER:63637
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).
12. In the case on hand, Ext.B1 policy is admittedly an 'Act
only Policy' and no additional premium had been paid. 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. 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.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
