Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rugmani M on 17 January, 2025
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
1
2025:KER:3692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2019 IN OPMV NO.2007
OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
MANAPPAL BUILDING, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR,
THRISSUR-680 664,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI 18.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 RUGMANI M
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. NARAYANAN, VATTEKKAD, KUTTIPPALLAM,
THEKKEDESOM, NELLEPPILLY P.O,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 553
2 NARAYANAN V,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. VELAN, VATTEKKAD, KUTTIPPALLAM,
THEKKEDESOM, NALLEPPILLY P.O,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 553
3 SUNI.N,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN V, VATTEKKAD,
KUTTIPPALLAM, THEKKEDESOM,
NALLEPPILLY P.O, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD-678 553
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
2
2025:KER:3692
4 KRISHNAKUMAR ,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE,
THEKKEDESOM, KUTTIPPALLAM,
NALLEPILLY P.O, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD-678 553
5 KANNAN P.V,
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PULIKKAN HOUSE,
ALAGAPPA NAGAR POST, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN-680 302
6 RAMESH,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. RAJAN, ERISSERI, PARAKKAL,
THEKKEDESOM, KUTTIPALLAM,
NALLEPPILLY P.O, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD-678 553
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
3
2025:KER:3692
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the
award in O.P. (MV) 2007 of 2017 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Palakkad.
2. The short point that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to
whether the award of the tribunal, in so far as it does not grant liberty to
the insurance company to recover the amount awarded by the tribunal as
compensation awarded to the claimants on account of the death as a result
of accident, is liable to be interfered with.
3. The second respondent in the claim petition (the 5 th respondent
herein) is the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.
KL 45 366. The 3rd respondent, in the claim petition (the 6 th respondent
herein) is the rider of the vehicle. The accident took place on 27.01.2017 at
Kozhinjanpara-Nallepilly public road. When the insurance company
appeared and contested the claim, a specific contention was raised by them
stating that the rider of the vehicle which met with an accident did not have
a valid driving licence. On the other hand, the 3 rd respondent in the claim
petition, who is the driver filed written statement asserting that at the time
of the incident he was holding a valid driving licence. In support of the
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
2025:KER:3692
contentions raised in the written statement, the insurance company
produced Exts.B1 to B3 documents. The tribunal, on the contrary held that
the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that the 3 rd respondent was
not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and thus,
declined the request of the insurance company to recover the amount from
the owner. It is against these findings that the insurance company has come
up in the appeal.
4. Heard Smt. Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Counsel for the
appellant. Though notice was served on the respondents, including the
claimants and the rider of the vehicle, none appeared before this Court.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, none appeared for
the respondents. Hence, this Court proceeds to consider the appeal on
merits.
5. On appreciating the findings of the tribunal in the award, this
Court finds that the same is required to be interfered with, to the extent it
does not grant liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount
from the owner for the reason to follow.
6. At the first instance itself, the insurance company asserted
before the tribunal, that the rider of the motor cycle did not have a driving
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
2025:KER:3692
licence, but on a contrary, the rider, who is the 3 rd respondent before the
tribunal asserted that he had a driving licence at the time of the accident.
Therefore, it was incumbent upon him to support the assertions made in the
written statement by producing sufficient evidence. Still further I.A. No.
4234 of 2018 was filed by the insurance company seeking a direction to the
rider of the vehicle to produce the driving licence. On 19.12.2018, the
tribunal passed an order directing the 3 rd respondent to produce the driving
licence or file an affidavit, and later, adjourned the consideration of I.A. to
22.05.2019 and again the case was adjourned to 24.07.2019, when the
tribunal closed the I.A. noticing that the 3rd respondent has neither
produced the driving licence nor filed an affidavit. This being the position,
the insurance company can not be expected to prove the negative while
asserting their claim that the 3rd respondent did not have a driving licence.
Since the 3rd respondent failed to respond to the order passed by the
tribunal in I.A. No.4234 of 2018, this Court is of the considered view that an
adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the tribunal, and the prayer
of the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner ought to
have been granted.
In the above discussions, this Court finds the appellant is entitled
MACA NO. 130 OF 2021
2025:KER:3692
to succeed, accordingly, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P. (MV) No. 2007 of 2017 is liable to be interfered
with to the extent it does not grant liberty to the insurance company to
recover the amount from the owner. Hence the appeal is allowed. The
insurance company is granted liberty to recover the amount ordered by the
tribunal from the owner of the vehicle.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
LU
