[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Manu Thomas vs Jins Mathew on 6 December, 2025
2025:KER:94604
M.A.C.A. No.2571 of 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MACA NO. 2571 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22/08/2019 IN O.P. (MV) NO.181 OF
2017 MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
MANU THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS V.J., VALAKODIYIL
HOUSE, PRAPOLI P.O., CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 511
BY ADV SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:
1 JINS MATHEW, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, VATTODI HOUSE,
CHAVARAGIRI, CHITTATIKKAL VILLAGE, P.O.PALAVA YAL,
VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN 670 511
2 THOMAS V.J., S/O.JOSEPH, VALAKODIYIL HOUSE, MULAPRA,
PRAPOLI P.O., CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 511
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PERUTNAL BUILDING, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670 307
BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94604
M.A.C.A. No.2571 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kasaragod, in O.P.(MV) No.181 of 2017 seeks to challenge the
award dated 22.08.2019, by which the Tribunal permitted the
insurance company to make payment to the claimant and thereafter
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle - the appellant
herein. The aforementioned direction issued by the Tribunal is the
subject matter of challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the
owner of the vehicle.
2. Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the
appellant herein, relying on the provisions of Section 66 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act'), would contend that the
direction issued by the Tribunal permitting the insurance company to
recover the compensation solely on the account of non-production
of the permit as well as the fitness certificate was flawed. As
regards the fitness certificate, he would also add that there was
actually a fitness certificate for the vehicle in question, which is
produced before this Court as Annexure - A1, which is valid from
15.04.2013 to 14.04.2014.
2025:KER:94604
3. Per contra, Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned counsel for
the insurance company, would submit that as regards the fitness
certificate, the contention as above can be accepted. However,
according to her, the requirement for producing a permit was not
satisfied, and to that extent, the ultimate conclusion made by the
Tribunal is only to be upheld.
4. As regards the requirement for producing the fitness
certificate, in the light of Annexure - A1, produced before this
Court, I find that the vehicle in question, in fact, had a valid fitness
certificate, and to that extent, the findings contained in paragraph
19 of the impugned award require to be set aside.
5. The only subsisting question arising for consideration is
with reference to the non-production of the permit, which was cited
by the Tribunal as a violation on the part of the appellant as regards
the insurance policy conditions.
6. It is with reference to the provisions of Section 66 of the
Act that the necessity for obtaining permits has been laid down. No
doubt, with reference to sub-section (1) thereunder, the owner of
the vehicle is required to obtain a permit when the transport vehicle
in question is being used for the transportation of "Goods".
2025:KER:94604
However, an exclusion has been provided with reference to sub-
section 3(i) of Section 66 of the Act, which reads as under:
"3(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of
which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms;"
A reading of the aforementioned exclusion would show that in the
case of a goods vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed
3,000 kg, the requirement under sub-section (1) has been excluded.
It is in the light of the aforementioned exclusion that the contention
raised by Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the
appellant herein, with reference to the certificate of fitness at
Annexure - A1, requires to be appreciated.
7. A perusal of the certificate of fitness shows the unladen
weight of the vehicle in question at 1665 kg - below the limit of
3,000 kg. That being the position, I am of the opinion that there
was no requirement for a permit with reference to the provisions of
Section 66(1) of the Act as regards a goods vehicle concerned.
Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal as regards the violation of
the policy conditions on the basis of the non-production of the
permit also does not appear to be the correct finding.
8. In such circumstances, the finding in the impugned
2025:KER:94604
award that the insurance company would be entitled to recover the
amount awarded from the appellant does not appear to be correct.
9. Accordingly, the appeal would stand allowed, holding that
it is for the insurance company to make the payment to the
claimant, and the insurance company would not be entitled to
recover the amount awarded from the owner of the vehicle -
appellant herein.
If any deposit has been made by the owner of the vehicle in
compliance with the provisions of the Act, the appellant shall be
entitled to withdraw the said amount. The Registry of this Court
shall release the original Registration Certificate, produced as
Annexure-A2, to the appellant upon obtaining proper
acknowledgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
PR
2025:KER:94604
APPENDIX OF MACA NO. 2571 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 ORIGINAL COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS OF
THE OFFENDING VEHICLE BEARING REG. N.KL-
3/L.2570
Annexure A2 ORIGINAL COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
OF OFFENDING VEHICLE BEARING REG. N.KL-
3/L.2570
