[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sivaram vs Anilkumar on 11 December, 2025
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
1
2025:KER:94583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.04.2008 IN OP(MV) NO.975 OF 2002 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
SIVARAM, S/O.LATE PALANI, REKHA NIVAS,
AVALOOKKUNNU.P.O,, ALAPPUZHA - 6.
BY ADV SRI.R.AZAD BABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 ANILKUMAR, S/O.PARAMU, VELIYIL VEEDU,
WARD NO.6,, MANNANCHERY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA.
*2 O.S MATHEW (CORRECTED)
CHERUVALLI HOUSE, VENMONY P.O, CHENGANNUR
(ADRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS O.S
MATHEW @ JOY S/O THOMAS CHERUVALLI HOUSE ,VENMANI PO
CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689509
AS PER ORDER DTD 3/12/19 IN IA NO. 1/19
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THIRUVALLA BR, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 02.12.2025, THE COURT ON 11.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
2
2025:KER:94583
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.975 of 2002
on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Alappuzha, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the
tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the
tribunal.
2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 01.05.2000 at
about 04.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding the motorcycle,
another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-2/A-5023 ridden by
the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the
motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. As a result of the accident he
had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the
tribunal claiming compensation.
3. The first and second respondents/the driver and the owner
of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal.
Original respondents 2 and 3 were deleted and present
respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded in the later stage of the
proceedings. The third respondent, insurer filed a written
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
2025:KER:94583
statement, admitting the accident but contending that the vehicle
involved had no insurance coverage on the date of accident and
thereby denying the liability. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13
were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and
materials on record, dismissed the original petition. Challenging
the dismissal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The accident and the charge sheet drawn against the 1 st
respondent are admitted. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that, though in the FIS and FIR registered on
05.05.2000 the number of the offending scooter was shown as KL-
2/B-5635, the next day, noticing the mistake, the petitioner gave a
subsequent statement in which the scooter number was correctly
given as KL-2/5023. It was also further submitted that the
incorrect number of the scooter was given to the police while
recording the FIS due to an inadvertant omission on the part of the
claimant and that the correct number of the scooter was KL-
2/5023. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since
Ext.A9 charge sheet was laid against the rider of the scooter, the
tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition filed by the
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
2025:KER:94583
claimant. The learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle
mahazar in respect of the offending scooter KL-2/5023 was
produced in order to substantiate the contention that the vehicle
involved in the accident was KL-2/5023.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance
company on the other hand submitted that the AMVI report in
respect of the offending vehicle was not produced to prove the
damages sustained to the vehicle. Ext.A7 was only the vehicle
mahazar in respect of the offending vehicle, and it did not reflect
any damages to the vehicle involved in the accident. Since the
AMVI report in respect of the vehicle has not been produced, there
is no evidence to substantiate the contention that the scooter
bearing registration No. KL-2/5023 was involved in the accident. It
was further contended that the claimant had not proved negligence
on the part of the rider of the scooter and hence the tribunal
rightly dismissed the claim petition and the interference of this
court is not called for.
7. I have considered the contention raised by both sides.
8. On a perusal of the award and connected documents
produced, it is seen that the vehicle alleged to have been involved
in the accident is KL-2/5023. In the FIS given on 05.05.2000, the
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
2025:KER:94583
number of the scooter was shown as KL-2/B-5635. Immediately on
the next day, the claimant gave an additional statement and the
number of the scooter was changed as KL-2/5023. No evidence was
produced before the tribunal to show that the alleged offending
scooter involved in the accident had sustained any damage. Also in
Ext.A7 vehicle mahazar, the vehicle number is shown as KL-2/A
5023 and not KL-2/5023. The claimant could have produced the
AMVI report to substantiate his contention that the accident
occurred when the scooter hit the motorcycle ridden by him. On a
perusal of Ext.A7 vehicle mahazar, it is mentioned that the scooter
was handed over to the AMVI for inspection. However, no report of
the AMVI is produced by the claimant.
9. It is true that the charge sheet has been drawn against the
rider of the scooter on the basis of the statement given by the
claimant. However, in order to support the charge, no documents
have been produced by the claimant. Though the claimant might
have sustained injuries in the accident, no evidence has been
adduced to establish that the offending vehicle was the scooter
bearing registration No. KL-2/A 5023. On consideration of the
entire issue, the tribunal found that the vehicle involved in the
accident was not the scooter bearing registration No. KL-2/5023,
MACA NO. 2915 OF 2008
2025:KER:94583
and that a different vehicle might have been involved in the
accident. As the documents produced by the claimant, except for
the charge sheet, do not substantiate his case that he sustained
injuries in the accident on account of being hit by the scooter
bearing registration No. KL-2/A 5023, the said contention is
unsustainable. Therefore, I find that the tribunal has rightly
dismissed the original petition and I do not find any reason to
interfere with the same
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SMA
