Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Fathima @ Pathutti on 22 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.629 of 2020
1
2025:KER:64013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 629 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.10.2019 IN OPMV NO.152 OF 2018
ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-682035, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN O.P:
1 FATHIMA @ PATHUTTI,
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. ASHARAF, THORAKKA HOUSE,
NALLOORNADU P O, MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-670645.
2 USMAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. SOOPPY, EANTHAN HOUSE,
VARAMBATTA P.O., PADINJARATHARA,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 673575.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.K.PREETHA
SRI.R.K.PRASANTH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.629 of 2020
2
2025:KER:64013
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.629 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second
respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.152/2018 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta (the Tribunal),
aggrieved by the Award dated 19/10/2019. The respondents
herein are the claim petitioner and the first respondent in the
petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be
referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on
05/02/2017 at about 05:30 p.m., while she was travelling in jeep
bearing registration no.KL-5-F-6368 from Panthipoyil to
Mothakkara and when she reached the place by name Edakkadan
mukku, car bearing registration no.KL-12-F-1417 driven by the
2025:KER:64013
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the
jeep, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner cum driver of the
offending filed written statement denying negligence on his part.
4. The second respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the first respondent. The compensation claimed under various
heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the second
respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent-owner cum driver
of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence
awarded an amount of ₹1,46,300/- together with interest @ 8%
2025:KER:64013
per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner
has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the
Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Though notice was served on the respondents, they have neither
appeared in person, nor through counsel.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
second respondent/insurer that the first respondent, who was
driving the vehicle at that time did not have a valid driving licence
and hence the Tribunal ought to have granted the liberty of
recovering the amount from the first respondent/owner cum driver
as there has been a violation of the policy condition.
10. On going through the impugned award, I find
that the first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle, had
2025:KER:64013
entered appearance and filed written statement on 14/06/2018.
The second respondent - insurer is seen to have filed written
statement on 29/05/2018, obviously before the first respondent
filed written statement contending that the latter did not have a
valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Despite the
specific contention in the written statement by the second
respondent-insurer, there is no mention about the existence of any
license in the written statement filed by the first respondent. The
second respondent - insurer is also seen to have filed I.A
No.2372/2018 under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for directing the first
respondent-driver/owner to produce the licence before the court.
The said petition is seen allowed by the Tribunal on 03/09/2018.
However, the same was not complied with. In this appeal also,
the first respondent-driver to whom notice has been served has not
produced the driving license. That being the position, I find that
the second respondent is entitled to be given the liberty to recover
the amount from the first respondent-driver/owner.
2025:KER:64013
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
award shall stand modified to the said extent.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
