[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Sathiamma M.G on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:12947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.04.2017 IN OPMV NO.1403 OF
2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
TRIVANDRUM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS
MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 020
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 SATHIAMMA M.G.
W/O.LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR K.VMOHANA VILASAM,
MULAKUZHA P.O, CHENGANNUR PIN 689 505
2 LEKSHMI SANTHOSH KUMAR LEKSHMI (MINOR)
D/O.LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR K.V, MOHANA VILASAM,
MULAKUZHA P.O, CHENGANNUR, PIN 689 505
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
2
3 PARVATHI SANTHOSH KUMAR @ PARVATHI (MINOR)
D/O. LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR K.V,MOHANA VILASAM, \
MULAKUZHA P.O, CHENGANNUR, PIN 689 505
4 VISHNU SANTHOSH KUMAR @ SANTHOSH (MINOR)
D/O. LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR K.V.,
MOHANA VILASAM, MULAKUZHA P.O,CHENGANNUR PIN 689
505
5 KAMALAMMA
D/O. MADHAVA PANICKER,SARKARIKAZHIKATHU VEEEDU,
KURA, THALAVOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN 691 514
6 LIJU P.J
S/O. JAMALUDEEN, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL,
KOLLAKADAVU P.O,CHERIYANADU,CHENGANNUR TALUK,
PIN 686 520
7 DILEEP KUMAR
S/O. S/O. RAGHAVAN,DEEPA BHAVAN, VENMONY P.O,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN 689 509
BY ADVS.
SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC
DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN
SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
SRI.M.M.VINOD
SMT.M.SUSEELA
SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
SHRI.TOBIAS TOGI MATHEW
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
3
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 31.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.3507/2017, 3512/2017,
THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 3507 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.04.2017 IN OPMV NO.1403 OF
2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
TRIVANDRUM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS
MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 020
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 RENU I. VARGHESE @ RENU
S/O. IDIKKULA, THAKARANPARAMBIL, KARAKKADU P.O.,
MULAKUZHA, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689 504.
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
5
2 LIJU.P.J.
S/O. JAMALUDEEN, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL,
KOLLAKADAVU P.O., CHERIYANADU,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN - PIN -686520
3 DILEEP KUMAR
S/O. RAGHAVAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, VENMONY P.O.,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN - 689 509.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN
SMT.M.SUSEELA
SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
SRI.M.M.VINOD
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 31.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.3364/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 3512 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.04.2017 IN OPMV NO.1403 OF
2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
TRIVANDRUM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-682020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 THOMAS GEORGE @JOGIE
S/O.GEORGE VARGHESE, MATHIRAMPALIL,
PUTHENCAVU, CHENGANNUR, PIN-689123.
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
7
2 LIJU P.J.
S/O.JAMALUDEEN, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, KOLLAKADAVU
P.O., CHERIYANADU, CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN -686520
3 DILEEP KUMAR
S/O.RAGHAVAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, VENMONY P.O.,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN-689509.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN
SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
SRI.M.M.VINOD
SMT.M.SUSEELA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.3364/2017
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
8
JUDGMENT
M.A.C.A.Nos. 3364, 3507 & 3512 OF 2017
These appeals are filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer, in
OP(MV) nos. 1402, 1403 and 1404 of 2010, on the files of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, primarily
challenging their liability to pay the award amounts in M.A.C.A.
Nos. 3507 and 3512 of 2017, for the injuries sustained in the
accident, as well as in M.A.C.A. No. 3364 of 2017, for the death
that occurred in the accident. The respondents herein were the
claimants and the first and second respondents in the original
petitions.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 20.04.2010, at
about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased in O.P.(MV) 1403/2010,
was riding a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-
30/5785 along with the petitioners in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1402/2010
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
& 1404/2010, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-03-H-418,
driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent
manner hit the autorickshaw and as a result, the deceased and
the petitioners sustained serious injuries, and the deceased
succumbed to his injuries. The claimants, who are the legal
heirs of the deceased, in O.P.(MV) No. 1403 of 2010,
approached the tribunal, claiming a total compensation of
₹25,91,600/-. The claimants in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1402/2010 and
1404/2010 claimed compensation of ₹69,000/- and ₹65,000/-
respectively for the injuries sustained in the accident.
3. The first and second respondents, the owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle, filed a common written
statement contending that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The third
respondent - insurer filed a written statement contending that
there was no valid insurance policy for the vehicle at the
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
relevant time of the accident. They also disputed the quantum
of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Before the tribunal,
Pws. 1 and 2 and Rws.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20
and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing
the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident
occurred due to negligence on the part of the second
respondent and awarded a sum of ₹14,750/-, ₹22,13,000/- &
₹15,250/- in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1402, 1403 & 1404 of 2010
respectively, as compensation under different heads with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till
realization with proportionate costs. Challenging the liability to
pay the compensation awarded, the 3 rd respondent - insurance
company has come up with these appeals.
4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the
appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents.
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
insurance company submitted that there was no valid insurance
policy covering the offending vehicle at the relevant time of the
accident, which occurred on 20.04.2010. Though Ext.B1 policy
was issued for the period from 15.06.2009 to 14.06.2010, the
premium was remitted by the first respondent-insured through
Ext.B2 cheque dated 08.05.2009 for an amount of ₹8,864/- and
the said cheque was dishonoured on 14.07.2009. Though
intimation was served to the first respondent insured on the
same day, as there was no response, a further intimation was
sent on 16.12.2009, which was duly served on 17.12.2009.
Despite receipt of the notice, the insured failed to remit the
premium amount. Consequently, the policy was cancelled and
there was no subsisting contract of insurance as on the date of
the accident.
6. The learned standing counsel relied on Exts. B1 to B6
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
in support of the said contention. It was further submitted that
due intimation regarding the cancellation of the policy was also
given to the Regional Transport Authority, Chengannur, as per
Ext. B6, and therefore, the insurance company will not be liable
for any risk arising under the afore-said documents. Though
these contentions were raised before the tribunal, the tribunal
had not appreciated the facts properly and found that the
insurance company was liable to pay the amount.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/insured, on the other hand, contended that a
specific plea was taken in the written statement that the first
respondent had not issued any cheque and that the premium
amount was paid in cash. Since the premium was paid in cash,
the policy was duly issued and there was a valid insurance
coverage as on the date of the accident. Having a valid
insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the first
respondent further submitted that even as per the evidence of
RW2, the Manager of the Co-operation Bank, Chengannur, Ext.
B2 cheque was not issued by the insured from his account. On
the contrary, the account relating to the said cheque stood in
the name of one Santhosh Kumar K.J., Mini Nivas, Mampra
P.O., Kodukulanji. The learned counsel for the first respondent
further submitted that he had no relation with the holder of the
afore-said cheque and, therefore, the insurance company
cannot contend that the cheque allegedly issued by the first
respondent was dishonoured.
8. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both
sides.
9. The question that arises for consideration in this case
is whether Ext.B2 cheque was issued by the first respondent
towards payment of the premium amount, or whether the
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
premium was paid in cash, and whether the first respondent
has any liability regarding the bouncing of Ext.B2 cheque.
10. As per Ext.B1 policy, the total premium amount was
8,864/-. Ext.B1 policy does not reflect the details of any cheque
issued by the first respondent. In Ext.B7 policy copy produced
by the respondent-insurer, there is a specific provision to
indicate the mode of payment, whether by demand draft,
cheque, or otherwise. However, in the Ext. B7 policy copy
issued in respect of the vehicle belonging to the first
respondent, no such particulars were filled in by the insurance
company at the time of issuance of the policy. Though the total
premium amount is shown as ₹8,864/-, Ext. B7 policy does not
reveal any entry indicating the mode of payment of premium
amount by the first respondent. In the written statement filed
by the insurer before the tribunal, in paragraph 10, it was their
specific case that the insured had issued Cheque No. 094287
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
dated 28.05.2009 drawn on the Co-operation Bank,
Chengannur. However, they did not have a case that the
cheque for the insured was issued by Santhosh Kumar.K.J. In
order to prove the contentions of the insurer regarding the
bouncing of the cheque and other issues, RW2, the Manager of
the Corporation Bank, Chengannur, was examined. During
examination, RW2 had testified that the holder of the account
number mentioned in the afore-said cheque is one Santhosh
Kumar K.J., Mini Nivas, Mampra P.O., Kodukulanji.
11. The case set up by the insurer that Ext. B2 cheque
was issued by the first respondent stands disproved by the
evidence of RW2. Even in the written statement, the insurance
company had no case that the cheque allegedly issued by the
first respondent belonged to one Santhosh Kumar M.J.
Absolutely no evidence has been adduced to prove that Ext. B2
cheque was issued by or at the instance of, the first respondent.
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
12. Though the first respondent submits that he had paid
the premium by cash, no receipt has been produced to prove
the same. Since policy was issued to the first respondent, it
must be presumed that it was issued upon receipt of the
premium amount from the insured. It is to be noted that there
is no entry in Exts. B1 and B7 policy copies indicating that the
premium was paid by cheque issued by the first respondent or
by cash. Though the insurance company contended that
immediately upon dishonour of the cheque, Exts.B5 and B6
notices were issued to the insured and to the Regional
Transport Authority, Chengannur, however, these documents
do not bear any postal receipts or acknowledgment details. The
learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company further
submitted that, as the first respondent did not respond to the
notices, a registered letter was issued on 16.12.2009 to the first
respondent and the intimation was duly served. The said
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
intimation was issued prior to the dishonour of the cheque.
13. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
insurance company relied on the judgment of this Court in
Prasanna.B. V. Kabeer P.K. and Another [2018 (5) KHC
454] and submitted that when an intimation about cancellation
of insurance policy is sent by registered post, the burden is on
the addressee to rebut the presumption by conclusive evidence
that he did not receive the letter. However, in the postal cover
it is stated as 'door locked' and 'intimation was served'. Though
the Post Master, RW3 was examined to prove Ext. B4, a specific
question was put i.e;
"Intimation is served എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ അർത്ഥം എന്താണ്.
Addressee - യുടെ intimation കൊടുത്തു എന്നാണ്".
However, in the cross-examination by the first and second
respondents, RW3 had stated that
"Ext-B4-ൽ house locked എന്നാണ് കാണിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത്".
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
Hence, it has to be presumed that no proper intimation
was given either to the first respondent regarding the notice
issued by the insurance company.
14. Admittedly a policy was issued to the first respondent
by the insurer. The insurance company, however, failed to
prove that a cheque was issued by the first respondent towards
the premium amount, and that cheque got bounced and that
proper intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque was
given to the first respondent. Exts.B7 policy was issued in
respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. Accordingly, the
insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability and
I find that the insurer is liable to pay the award amount.
However, no challenge has been raised by the insurance
company regarding the quantum of compensation awarded to
the claimants, and I find no reason to interfere with the same.
2026:KER:6099
MACA NO. 3364 OF 2017 & connected cases
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurance company
are dismissed.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
RK
