Kerala High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company ... vs Daisy on 9 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.521 of 2020
1
2025:KER:40240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 521 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.09.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.575 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
APPELLANT/ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT:
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, ERNAKULAM,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL),
REGIONAL OFFICE, RAJAJI ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND ADDL.
RESPONDENT NO.5:
1 DAISY,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. BABY, THENGUPALLIL HOUSE, SCHOOL CITY, BHAGAM,
THOPPRAMKUDY KARA, VATHIKUDY VILLAGE, P.O.
VATHIKUDY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 609.
2 RIJO JOSEPH,
S/O. JOSEPH, KOLLAMPARAMBIL (H), THOMBRAMKUDY KARA,
THOMBRAMKUDY BHAGAM, VATHIKUDY VILLAGE, P.O.
M.A.C.A.No.521 of 2020
2
2025:KER:40240
VATHIKUDY, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685609.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, MOOVATTUPUZHA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.
4 BABY,
S/O. MANUEL, THENGUPALLIL HOUSE,
SCHOOL CITY BHAGAM, THOPPRAMKUDY KARA, VATHIKUDY
VILLAGE, P.O. VATHIKUDY, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 609.
5 KRISHNAKUMAR,
S/O. PUSHKARAN, KAVANAL HOUSE, PAKKANAM,
PUNCHAVAYAL, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 507.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BOBBY GEORGE
SRI.VPK.PANICKER
SRI.BINU PAUL
SHRI.SACHIN RAMESH
SRI.JOY C. PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.521 of 2020
3
2025:KER:40240
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.521 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of June 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the fourth respondent/insurer in
O.P.(MV) No.575/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award
dated 06/09/2019. The respondents herein are the petitioner, and
respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in the original petition. 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 17/03/2016 at
05:30 p.m., she was travelled as a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing
registration No.KL-37/7571 along the Thombramkudy-Murikkassery
public road. When she reached the place by name Thombramkudy
Kara, auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-34-B-4338 driven
2025:KER:40240
by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her
down as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent, owner cum driver of the auto
rickshaw; the third respondent, owner-cum rider of the motorcycle
and the fifth respondent, the policy holder of the auto rickshaw
remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written
statement denying issuance of policy for the auto rickshaw.
5. The fourth respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the existence of a valid policy relating to the
auto rickshaw. The age, occupation and monthly income of the claim
petitioner were disputed. It was contended that there was no
negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver and that the
amount claimed was exorbitant.
6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were
examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. Exts.B1 to B3 were produced by the respondents. No oral
evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.C1 is the disability
2025:KER:40240
certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam..
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending
vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of
₹4,82,100/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs.
Aggrieved by the Award, the fourth respondent/insurer has come up
in appeal.
8. 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.
9. Heard both sides.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth
respondent/insurer that in the light of the entry made by the doctor in
Ext.A8 wound certificate, the cause of the incident itself is doubtful.
In Ext.A8 the doctor has recorded that the claim petitioner sustained
injuries due to fall from a bike. That being the position, it is
2025:KER:40240
submitted that the accident/incident as stated by the claim petitioner
has not been proved and therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable.
11. It is true that in Ext.A8, the doctor has recorded
that the injuries were caused due to a fall from the bike. The claim
petitioner when examined as PW1 stood by her case in the box that
the incident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. Added to this, there
is Ext.A4 final report/charge sheet in crime no.94/2016,
Murikkaserry police station as per which the first respondent/driver
is stated to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279,
337 and 338 IPC. As per Ext.A13 judgment in C.C.No.124/2016 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki, the first
respondent/driver of the offending vehicle is seen to have pleaded
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338
IPC and hence he has been sentenced accordingly. In the light of
Exts.A4 and A13, negligence on the part of the first
respondent/driver has been established. Apart from the production of
Ext.B2, which is a complaint given to police disputing the accident
2025:KER:40240
alleged by the claim petitioner, no evidence has been let in to
disprove the accident. In the light of Exts.A4 and A13, I find that
the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer cannot be countenanced and therefore, I find no
infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by
this Court.
In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
