Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Mohammed Ashique on 14 July, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.147 of 2020
1
2025:KER:51822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 147 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.1006
OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
TIRUR.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
1ST FLOOR OASIS PLAZA, AMEY ROAD KASARGOD DIST.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, 36/707, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
OPP.MAHARAJAS COLLEGE GROUND, KERALA - 682 011.
BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OP:
1 MOHAMMED ASHIQUE,
AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, KATHALI HOUSE,
PUTHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN CODE - 676 503.
2 MOIDU D.M.,
S/O.MOHAMMED, SANTHI NAGAR, PERAL MOGRAL P.O.,
KASARGODE DIST., PIN CODE - 671 121 (RC OWNER).
3 AHAMMED JALALUDHEEN SAYYED,
S/O.SAYYED ABOOBACKER, JALALIYA MANZIL HOUSE,
PANATHADI, KUNJATHUR P.O., MANJESWAR, KASARGOD
DIST., PIN CODE - 671 323 (DRIVER).
BY ADV SHRI.P.VENUGOPAL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.147 of 2020
2
2025:KER:51822
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.147 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the third respondent/insurer in
O.P.(MV) No.1006/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Tirur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated
30/07/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner and
respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the appeal. 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 09/03/2017
at about 06:00 a.m., while the petitioner was driving his car bearing
registration no. KL-65-G-9328 from Mangalapuram through
Vengalam bye pass road and when he reached the place by name
Maalikkadavu, lorry bearing registration No.KL-55-E-8384 driven
2025:KER:51822
by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner rammed
against the car as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
An amount of ₹20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under
various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part
of the second respondent/driver. It was also contended that the
amount claimed was exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No
oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the
respondents. Ext.C1 is the report of the Taluk Medical Board,
Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Tirurangadi.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the
2025:KER:51822
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹10,76,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third
respondent/insurer 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 both sides.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under
the following head is challenged by the third respondent/insurer -
Medical expenses
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that as Exts.A8, A10 and A11 series are
electronic records, the compliance of provisions of Sections
65A and 65B of the Evidence Act was mandatory. However, the
said procedure has not been complied with and therefore, the
documents were inadmissible in evidence. It is also pointed out that
2025:KER:51822
the original of the bills and vouchers have not been produced by the
claim petitioner and therefore, the Tribunal could not have relied on
Exts. A8, A10, A11 series and awarded an amount of ₹7,00,650/-
towards medical expenses. Per contra, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of Section
169 of the Act, the argument that compliance of the provisions of
Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act is mandatory is
untenable. He also points out that Ext.A11 series are the bills
evidencing the advance payments made by claim petitioner.
Exts.A8 and A10 series are the consolidated statement of the bills
issued by the hospital, where the claim petitioner was hospitalized
for a period of 29 days. He also points out to the testimony of PW1,
who was examined to prove the documents. Therefore, the
argument is that no infirmity has been committed by the Tribunal
calling for an interference by this Court.
10. The marking of Exts. A8, A10 and A11 series
was never objected to by the third respondent/insurer when they
were attempted to be brought in evidence and marked. Therefore, it
2025:KER:51822
is too late in the day for the third respondent/insurer to now raise an
objection regarding its admissibility. Further, on going through the
testimony of PW1, I find that the third respondent/insurer does not
have a case that the documents produced in support of his claim,
that is, Exts.A8, A10 and A11 series are false or fabricated
documents. It is true that PW1 has deposed that it was the
bystanders and the members of his family who had paid the bill.
That would not mean that it was not the claim petitioner who was
liable to make the payment or that he had not made the payment.
As the bills support the case of the claim petitioner regarding the
amount paid, I do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal granting the
amount as evidenced by the documents.
In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
