Jiju Anand Alias Jijo Anand vs Krishnan Asari
2025 Latest Caselaw 714 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jiju Anand Alias Jijo Anand vs Krishnan Asari on 8 July, 2025

                                                       2025:KER:49403
MACA No.1049/2014
                                  ..1..

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

         TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947

                         MACA NO. 1049 OF 2014

  OPMV NO.468 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

             JIJU ANAND ALIAS JIJO ANAND
             S/O.SADANANDAN,ANAND BHAVAN,
             KAPPITHOTTAM,KURUPUZHA,ELAVATTOM PO

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
             SRI.S.SURESH (VAMANAPURAM)
             SMT.R.N.SAJITHA
             SMT.SINDHU S KAMATH



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       KRISHNAN ASARI, S/O.NATESAN ASARI,NATESH BHAVAN,
             PIRAMANAMKATTUVILA,KANJIRACODE(PO),K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL
             NADU STATE, PIN 629 155

     2       RIJU SOMAN
             S/O.SOMAN ARUNTHADI, PULIYOOR,PACHA (PO),PIN 695 562.

     3       THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH
             OFFICE, ATTINGAL, PIN 695 101

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.M.ANEESH
             SHRI.JOY JOSEPH (MANAYATHU)


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 03.06.2025, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2025:KER:49403
MACA No.1049/2014
                                       ..2..




                                 JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.468 of

2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal,

against the dismissal of the claim petition. The respondents herein were

the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

27.02.2005, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/B-

3439 along the Palode - Pacha public road, a Royal Enfield motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.TN-74/Z-988 driven by the second respondent in a rash

and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle ridden by the claimant,

whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal

claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 were

the owner and rider respectively of the offending motorcycle. The

respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy

coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and

quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18

were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was

adduced by the third respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing

the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition

finding that the claimant failed to prove the accident. Challenging this, 2025:KER:49403

..3..

the claimant has come up in appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly

challenged the finding of the tribunal that the claimant failed to prove

the accident. It was submitted that the accident occurred due to the hit

by the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-74/Z-988.

According to the learned counsel, the tribunal erred in finding that the

offending vehicle, which was a strong and more sturdy vehicle, could

not have sustained heavy and extensive damages comparing to those

sustained to the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/B-3439, ridden by

the claimant. The learned counsel pointed out that the charge sheet was

drawn against the rider of the Royal Enfield bearing Reg.No.TN-74/Z-

988 and the delay in reporting the occurrence was due to the fact that

the appellant was under treatment for the injuries sustained in the

accident. According to the learned counsel, since the charge sheet was

drawn against the rider of the Royal Enfield, which was the offending

vehicle, the tribunal could not have taken a different view that the

injuries sustained to the appellant were not due to the hit by the Royal

Enfield. It was further submitted that the documents as well as the

evidence on record proved that the accident occurred due to the hit by 2025:KER:49403

..4..

the Royal Enfield against the motorcycle ridden by the appellant and

hence, the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred not due to

the rash and negligent riding on the part of the second respondent/rider

of the Royal Enfield is unsustainable.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

insurer, on the other hand, submitted that the tribunal has rightly found

that though the accident occurred, it is not the Royal Enfield involved in

the accident. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the appellant

suppressed the real occurrence since the motorcycle of the appellant

was not having a valid insurance as on the date of the accident and he

colluded with the rider of the Royal Enfield in order to get a claim from

the insurer of the Royal Enfield. It was further argued that the accident

occurred on 27.02.2005, however, the FIR was only registered only on

10.03.2005, i.e., after 11 days of the accident, and even then, the

offending vehicle was noted as "unidentified" by the police, which adds

to the fact that the story narrated by the claimant in respect of the

accident was not correct. The learned Standing Counsel further

submitted that the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector

(AMVI) also creates a doubt regarding the narration of the accident that

the Royal Enfield, which is a more heavy and sturdy vehicle compared to

the motorcycle ridden by the claimant, sustained more damages. Hence, 2025:KER:49403

..5..

he argued that the tribunal dismissed the claim petition after a proper

appreciation of the entire evidence and there is no reason to interfere

with the same.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both

sides.

7. The issue to be decided is whether the accident

occurred due to the hit by the Royal Enfield on the motorcycle ridden by

the claimant. The accident admittedly occurred on 27.02.2005, which is

wrongly shown in the impugned award as 27.07.2005. It is true that the

appellant, who was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/B-3439,

sustained injuries in the accident. However, the alleged accident was

reported after 11 days of occurrence, for which, no reason, whatsoever,

has been stated in the claim petition. The claimant also did not mount

the box to give evidence. Ext.X1 disability certificate was issued by the

Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram,

assessing the appellant to have 7% disability. In the FIR, which was

registered on 10.03.2005, the offending vehicle was noted as

"unidentified". As per Ext.A3 vehicle mahazar, the following were the

damages sustained to the Royal Enfield:

"(1) front crash-guard broken, (2) front mud-guard dented,(3) head-

light assembly broken, (4) mud-guard and brake lever broken and (5) indicator light broken."

2025:KER:49403

..6..

As per Ext.A4 series report of AMVI, the following were the damages

sustained to the Royal Enfield:

"(1) fork assembly fully damaged, (2) head-light assembly broken, (3) front mud-guard dented, (4) left hand side indicator broken and (5) body casting near odometer and assembly light broken."

As per Ext.A3 vehicle mahazar, the following were the injuries sustained

to the motorcycle ridden by the appellant:

"(1) front head-light broken fully, (2) indicator light broken and destructed and (3) crash-guard twisted."

8. In Ext.A4 series AMVI report dated 18.03.2005, it was

specifically noted that the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-

74/Z-988, cited as the offending vehicle, was found in such a damaged

condition that it could not be removed from the place of accident. If, on

18.03.2005, the Royal Enfield was in a condition that it could not be

removed from the place of accident, then a doubt arises as to why in the

FIR, the vehicle was mentioned as one "unidentified". If both the

motorcycles were lying at the place of occurrence, there is no reason for

not identifying the offending vehicle by the police, which creates a

doubt as regards the occurrence of the accident. It is true that the

charge sheet was drawn against the Royal Enfield. That alone cannot be

taken as conclusive evidence to arrive at a finding that the accident

occurred due to the hit by the Royal Enfield on the motorcycle ridden by 2025:KER:49403

..7..

the appellant. Since the motorcycle ridden by the appellant was not

having a valid insurance policy, a false complaint might have been

registered attributing rash and negligence on the part of the second

respondent/rider of the Royal Enfield. He could have mounted the box

and given the best evidence regarding the incident that occurred on

27.02.2005. However, he did not choose to appear before the tribunal

and give evidence. Even though there is a charge, if the other reports

and factual circumstances reveal otherwise, the court need not solely

rely on the charge sheet drawn against the rider/driver of the offending

vehicle.

Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials on board, I

find that this is a case where the Royal Enfield was falsely implicated in

the accident in order to claim compensation from the insurer of the

Royal Enfield. The tribunal has elaborately considered the issues on the

basis of the documents produced before the tribunal. I do not find any

reason to interfere with the impugned award of dismissal. Accordingly,

the appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-