[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vinod R vs Rani Paul on 11 February, 2026
2026:KER:12250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.02.2003 IN OPMV NO.733 OF
1992 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VINOD R.
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
MURUNTHALAKUNNIL KIZHAKKATHIL,
VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SRI.K.R.RANJITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RANI PAUL
W/O.A.K PAUL, ALAPPAT HOUSE,
KARAVICHIRA, THRISSUR (OWNER) 680006
2 K.P PRADEEPKUMAR
S/O. PRABHAKARAN, KIZHAVANA VEEDU,
KOORKKANCHERRY, CHEYYARAM,
THRISSUR (DRIVER) 680 007
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
2
THRISSUR 680 001
BY ADV SHRI.M.HARISHARMA - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.02.2026, THE COURT ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/first claimant
challenging the dismissal of the impugned award dated
02.02.2003 in O.P.(MV) No.733 of 1992 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The second claimant is the
father and next friend of the first claimant, who sustained injury
in the motor vehicle accident. The respondents herein were the
respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 22.09.1991 at about
9.00 a.m., while the first claimant was travelling in his bicycle
along the Kollam - Thiruvananthapuram N.H., a car bearing
registration No.KLR-9094 driven by the second respondent in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle and as a
result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached
the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.
3. Though notice was served on the first and second
respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before
the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written
statement, admitting the insurance policy but disputing the
liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended
that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the
claimant who was riding the bicycle. Before the tribunal, PW1
and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The
tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record,
dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no
negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver.
Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, the claimant has
come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant was aged 15 years at the time of the accident and
that, while he was crossing the road from south to north on his
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
bicycle, the car, which came from east to west, hit him. The
learned counsel further submitted that Ext.A2, the final report
filed by the police as a refer report, was disputed and PW1 and
PW2 were examined.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
insurance company, however, submitted that there was
inconsistency in the deposition of PW2 as well as the First
Information Statement filed in this case. It was further
submitted that the car was not coming from east to west but was
moving from west to east, and that the appellant, who was riding
a bicycle, was crossing the road from south to north when the
accident occurred. The place of occurrence is stated to be 28 cm
south of the northern tar end. It was argued by the learned
standing counsel that the appellant has failed to establish
negligence on the part of the driver of the car. From the
evidence adduced by the appellant and the manner in which the
accident has been narrated in the claim petition, it is not clear as
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
to the exact direction in which the appellant was travelling or
whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the car and hence the tribunal has rightly dismissed the
claim petition.
7. I have considered the rival contentions raised on
both sides.
8. The insurer, in the written statement, filed before
the tribunal, admitted the occurrence of the accident but
contended that the accident did not occur due to the negligence
on the part of the driver of the car and that it was caused by the
negligent riding of the bicycle by the first claimant himself. PW1,
the appellant/claimant, was examined, and PW2, an eyewitness
to the occurrence, was also examined. It is an admitted fact that
the claimant was riding a bicycle at the time of the accident and
that he was crossing the road when the car hit him. Though
there is some inconsistency regarding the direction in which the
appellant was riding the bicycle, may be due to the ignorance
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
regarding the direction by the claimant, who was a minor at the
time of accident. If the car driver was at moderate speed, the
accident could have been avoided.
9. The tribunal dismissed the claim petition only for the
reason that the police had referred the case on finding that the
car driver was not rash and negligent. The tribunal did not have
a case that the inconsistency in the depositions were the reasons
to dismiss the claim petition. The reasons stated by the tribunal
is that the negligence was on the part of the claimant in causing
the accident. Since PW1 and PW2 were examined to prove that
there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car, I hold
that the insurance company had not adduced any evidence
however to prove that there was negligence on the part of the
claimant in riding the bicycle. Since the police had filed a refer
report, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 proved that the accident
had occurred and that it was due to negligence on the part of the
driver of the car.
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
Since the claim petition was dismissed, the tribunal has
not decided regarding the compensation to be paid to the
appellant. The accident is of the year 1991 and almost 35 years
have elapsed. No purpose will be served if the matter is
remanded back to the tribunal. The appellant had claimed an
amount of ₹1,00,000/- as compensation before the tribunal. In
the award, it is stated that the appellant was aged 15 years at
the time of accident and he sustained very serious injuries in the
accident. On a perusal of Ext.A6 wound certificate and Ext.A7
discharge summary, it is seen that the claimant sustained
injuries such as loss of 3 teeth and multiple fractures.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, I find it appropriate to fix a consolidated amount as
compensation for the injuries sustained to the claimant in the
accident, without remanding the matter back to the tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by directing the
insurance company to pay a consolidated amount of ₹50,000/- to
2026:KER:12250
MACA NO. 2559 OF 2015
the appellant/claimant, along with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of the petition till realization with proportionate
costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount
together with interest and costs within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The
appellant/claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card,
AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer
within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance
company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure
to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance
company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon
such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed
to the appellant/claimant at the earliest in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
RK
