[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Syamala V.S vs Anilkumar on 2 February, 2026
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.06.2022 IN O.P(M.V) NO.1879
OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPLICANT IN O.P.(M.V)NO.1879/2016:
SYAMALA V.S
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA EDAPAZHINJITHADATHARIKATHU
VEEDU ALAMMUKKU, VEERANAKKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DARPPAKAD HOUSE,
VIMALANAGAR.P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 670645
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)
SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V)NO.1879/2016:
1 ANILKUMAR
S/O RETHANAM, HOUSE NO.8/159
ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHULLIYOOR,
PERUMKADAVILA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695124
2 ROBERT, (WRONGLY WRITTEN AS ROBOT IN THE AWARD)
S/O LAZAR, R.S.BHAVAN, NEDUMPULLI, KUTTAMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
IIND FLOOR, 3RD PARTY, CLAIMS HUB,
PULIMOODU, GPO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER., PIN - 695001
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
2
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS - R1
SRI.V.P.POULOSE - R2
SMT.JESSY GEORGE - R3
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2026
This appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved
by the award dated 08.06.2022 in O.P.(M.V) No.1879/2016,
on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Trivandrum.
2. The alleged case of the petitioner/appellant
is as follows: The appellant was the pillion rider on the
motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-01-AL-5512 at around
9 PM on 02.04.2016. When the vehicle reached near
Kattakkada Market, in front of Punchiri Glass House, the 2nd
respondent, who was riding the motorcycle, in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed, suddenly turned the vehicle.
As a result, the appellant was thrown onto the road and
sustained injuries. She was taken to the Medical College
Hospital, where it was assessed that she had Grade III
mobility of the upper left incisor, right fracture symphysis,
fracture of the mandible, and other injuries.
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
3. It is further contended that the 1st
respondent is the owner of the motorcycle, which had a valid
insurance policy with the 3rd respondent. At the time of the
accident, she was 44 years old and worked as a tailor with a
monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. Ultimately, she was assessed
to have 14% disability. The claim was originally for Rs. 3.34
lakhs, which was later limited to Rs. 2.50 lakhs.
The Tribunal framed the following questions for
consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident
which was an outcome of rash and negligent conduct of
the 2nd respondent as the rider of the offending
motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-01-AL-5512?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as
prayed for; if so, what shall be the quantum?
3. Who shall pay the compensation?
4. Reliefs and costs?
4. However, after evaluating Exts.A1 to A17
and B1, B1(a), and examining witnesses PW1 and PW2, the
Tribunal concluded that the appellant could not establish any
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, rider of the
motorcycle. Accordingly, the 1st respondent, as the owner of
the motorcycle, cannot be fastened with any liability, and the
3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1 st respondent.
As there was no convincing evidence regarding negligence on
the part of the 2nd respondent, the Tribunal concluded that
the appellant did not sustain injuries in the accident due to
rash or negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 2 nd
respondent. On this basis, the petition was dismissed by the
Tribunal.
5. The appellant contends that the compensation
envisaged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
is intended to provide relief to victims, and that the Tribunal,
without bearing in mind the objective of the legislature,
erroneously dismissed the claim. The appellant further
contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the decision of
this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pazhaniammal & Others [2011 (3) KLT 648], wherein it
was held that if one of the parties disputes the charge sheet
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
filed by the police, the burden lies on that party to adduce
oral evidence, and the charge sheet would pale into
insignificance, with the dispute to be decided based on the
evidence adduced before the Tribunal.
6. In the present case, the appellant disputed
the police charge sheet, which necessitated her entering the
witness box and giving evidence. However, the Tribunal did
not properly appreciate this evidence and relied solely on
Exts.A1, B1, and B1(a) in deciding the original petition.
7. Considering the grounds raised in the
appeal, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration, taking into account the
evidence adduced by the appellant and the grounds raised in
the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is
remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The
Tribunal shall complete the proceedings within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
2026:KER:8721
MACA NO. 3974 OF 2022
judgment.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
rkr
