Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Rajesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 10424 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10424 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2025

Kerala High Court

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Rajesh on 3 November, 2025

                                                      2025:KER:83589
MACA No.937/2015
                                 ..1..

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

     MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                         MACA NO. 937 OF 2015

 OPMV NO.2853 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

            IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
            COCHIN NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL IFFCO
            BHAVAN THOTTAKKAT ROAD, KOCHI 682011.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
            SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

     1      RAJESH, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, PARAPURATH HOUSE,
            NELLIKKATTIRI P.O. VIA KOOTTANAD, PALAKKAD, PIN 678320.

     2      GOPAKUMAR K., S/O.MADHAVAN, MANGLAMKOTTIL HOUSE,
            NELLIKKATTIRI P.O. VIA KOOTTANAD, PALAKKAD, PIN 678320.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.S.APPU
            SRI.A.R.NIMOD
            SRI.SANIL JOSE



     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:83589
MACA No.937/2015
                                    ..2..



                               JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the second respondent insurer in

OP(MV) No.2853 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Thrissur, challenging the liability to pay compensation

awarded to the claimant, alleging that there was no valid insurance

policy for the offending vehicle. The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the

claimant and the first respondent before the tribunal respectively.

2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal was that

on 23.01.2005, while he was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing

Reg.No.KL-9/M-3828 from Nellikkattiri to Guruvayur Temple ridden by

the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the motorcycle

turned upside down, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The

claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of

₹2,40,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner-cum-rider and

the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte

before the tribunal. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were

marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on

record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of

the rider of the motorcycle and awarded a sum of ₹1,60,450/- as 2025:KER:83589

..3..

compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from

the date of petition till realization against the second respondent being

the insurer. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging

the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the first

respondent/claimant.

4. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, the

learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the insurer had

deposited the entire amount before the tribunal and the said amount

was withdrawn by the first respondent/claimant. It is further submitted

that though the insurer was declared ex parte before the tribunal, even

before passing the impugned award, the appellant had filed IA No. 3435

of 2009 before the tribunal for setting aside the ex parte order against

the appellant, however, the said IA was dismissed on 07.06.2010

without any proper reason and the impugned award was passed on

31.10.2012. As regards the validity of policy, the learned Standing

Counsel submits that during the pendency of this appeal, along with IA

No.2 of 2016, the appellant produced Annexures A to D, viz., a copy of a

dishonoured cheque for payment of premium for renewal of the policy in 2025:KER:83589

..4..

respect of the offending vehicle, a copy of the intimation with regard to

the dishonour of cheque, a copy of the cancelled policy, and a copy of

the intimation given to the second respondent/owner-cum-rider of the

insured vehicle regarding cancellation of the policy with copy to the

Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Officer,

Palakkad.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant

submits that the petition to set aside the ex parte order was filed by the

appellant insurer after reserving the case for orders on 27.04.2009. It is

further submitted that though several postings were given thereafter,

none appeared for the insurer and the impugned award was passed on

31.10.2012. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the first

respondent/claimant, there is no reason for this Court to give a further

opportunity to the appellant insurer.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both

sides. The case of the appellant insurer is that there was no valid policy

for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and the cheque

issued towards premium was bounced and an intimation to that effect

was also given to the second respondent/owner-cum-rider of the

offending vehicle/insured. To substantiate the said contention, the 2025:KER:83589

..5..

appellant produced Annexures A to D. Though a petition was filed for

setting aside the ex parte order, the same was dismissed by the tribunal.

Considering the above facts and also the fact that the compensation

awarded to the first respondent/claimant has already been deposited by

the appellant insurer and that the claimant has withdrawn the same, I

am of the opinion that one more opportunity can be granted to the

appellant insurer to prove their case before the tribunal regarding

liability.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, as follows:

a) The matter is remanded back to the tribunal only to the extent

of considering the issue regarding the liability of the insurer to

pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal. It is made clear

that the tribunal shall not revisit the quantum of compensation

awarded under the impugned award.

b) The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 05.12.2025.

c) If the tribunal finds that the insurer has no liability to pay the

award amount, the appellant insurer will be entitled only to

recover the amount already deposited by them and withdrawn

by the claimant, with interest from the second

respondent/owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle.

2025:KER:83589

..6..

d) If the award amount deposited by the insurer and withdrawn by

the claimant does not include the statutory deposit made by the

insurer, the same shall be refunded to the insurer.

e) The Registry shall return all documents including original

documents, if any, produced in the appeal to the parties

concerned.

SD/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE bka/-

2025:KER:83589