Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs D.Madhusoodanan on 5 November, 2025
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:82567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1947
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OP(MV) NO.1297 OF 2002 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT :-
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTYMANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD,ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT :-
D.MADHUSOODANAN
S/O.DHAMODHARAN PILLAI, TC 28/1607,
MANJUSHA,KUNJUVEEDU LANE,
SREEKANTESWARAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 23.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.10.2025, THE COURT ON 05.11.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:82567
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent in O.P
(MV) No.1297 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the liability to
pay the amount awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein is
the claimant before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 09.01.2002 at about 09.25 pm
while the petitioner was moving through the road, a maruti car
bearing registration No.KL-01-U-7898 driven by the 1 st respondent
in a rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner. As a result of the
accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The appellant
approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of
₹1,44,500/- limited to ₹1,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent/the owner cum driver of the offending
vehicle filed a written statement and contended that the petition is
not maintainable, it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The
2nd respondent insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written
statement disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and
contended that the petitioner had sustained injuries due to the
hitting of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-V-7898. Before the
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
2025:KER:82567
tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked and Pws 1
and 2 and DW1 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the
pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹23,000/- as
compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum
from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs
against the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending
vehicle.
4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurer. Though notice was served on the sole
respondent/claimant, he has chosen not to appear before this Court.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance
company submitted that the tribunal was wrong in finding that the
vehicle involved in the accident is KL-01-U-7898 since in the FIR and
the police records, the vehicle number was shown as KL-01-V-7898.
It is further submitted that since the vehicle No. KL-01-V-7898 could
not be traced out, the vehicle bearing registration KL-01-U-7898
which was insured with the appellant was falsely implicated in order
to illegally claim the amount. The learned Standing Counsel also
submitted that, challenging the earlier award, the insurer had filed
an appeal before this Court as MACA No.1139 of 2011. This Court
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
2025:KER:82567
fresh consideration. However, the Tribunal, without proper
appreciation of the facts and evidence, has again passed an award
imposing liability upon the appellant herein. It is further contended
that since the vehicle was not properly identified by the injured and
the negligence on the part of the driver was not proved, the finding
of the Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident was KL-01-
U-7898 is unsustainable. It is submitted that, in the absence of
proper proof of negligence, the direction issued by the Tribunal
fastening liability on the insurance company to pay the
compensation is not legally sustainable and hence, the award is
liable to be set aside.
6. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the
earlier award dated 02.01.2010 was challenged by way of an appeal
by the insurer before this Court as MACA No.1139 of 2011 and this
Court as per order dated 23.08.2013 remanded the matter back to
the tribunal to consider and pass fresh orders. Pursuant to the
receipt of the records and the judgment, the evidence of PWs 1 and
2 and DW1 was recorded and Exts.A12 to A15 and B2 were marked
by the tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the police, after
investigation, filed a final report stating that the vehicle involved in
the accident could not be detected. There is no evidence on record
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
2025:KER:82567
other than the depositions of Pws 1 and 2 that the vehicle involved
in the accident was KL-01-U-7898. It is the case of the claimant that
when he noticed that the vehicle involved in the accident was not
KL-01-V-7898, he had issued a lawyers notice to the 1 st respondent
in the claim petition. The vehicle number stated in Ext.A12, legal
notice was KL-01-U-7898. The afore notice was received by the 1 st
respondent and the acknowledgment card was produced as Ext.A15.
Though the said registered notice was received by the 1st
respondent, no reply was sent to the said notice nor disputed
Exts.A12 to A15. Moreover, the claimant mounted the box and was
examined as PW1 and during cross examination he had deposed that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
car bearing registration No.KL-01-U-7898. Moreover, PW2 who was
a witness to the incident also deposed that he had witnessed the
accident and the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving
of the car bearing registration No.KL-01-U-7898. Though PWs 1 and
2 were cross examined nothing was brought out in support of the
case of the respondent. The 2nd respondent-insurer examined its
Branch Manager as DW1, but her evidence did not bring out
anything significant. No other evidence was adduced by the
respondent insurer to prove their contention that the afore vehicle
MACA NO. 346 OF 2016
2025:KER:82567
KL-01-U-7898 was not involved in the accident. It is true that in the
FIS and chargesheet the number of the vehicle was shown as KL-01-
V-7898. But the evidence adduced and the documents produced by
the claimant supported the case that the number of the vehicle was
KL-01-V-7898. Moreover, the amount involved in this appeal is only
₹23,000/-. The tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced by the
claimant, found that the vehicle involved in the accident was KL-01-
U-7898 and found that the driver of the car was negligent in causing
the accident and the appellant/2nd respondent being the insurer of
the car was found liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
tribunal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SMA
