[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Chacko T.S. (62) on 26 February, 2026
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
1
2026:KER:15842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.10.2019 IN OP(MV) NO.867 OF 2014 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
CHACKO.T.S, AGED 62 YEARS
THOMPIKALAYIL HOUSE, KULAKKADU, THIRUVALLA P.O,
THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DIST PIN 689 111
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SHRI.SABU I.KOSHY
SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 & ADDITIONAL 2 :-
1 JORTIN DANI KOSHY
S/O. KOSHY JACOB, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 115
2 THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, RELIANCE
CENTRE 19, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI PIN 400 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.225/2020, 132/2020,
THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2
2026:KER:15842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
MACA NO. 225 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.10.2019 IN OP(MV) NO.867 OF 2014 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT :-
JORTIN DANI KOSHY, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.KOSHY JACOB, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
THIRUMOOLAPURAM (PO), KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN-689 115.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT :-
1 CHACKO.T.S., THOMPIKALAYIL HOUSE, KULAKKADU,
THIRUVALLA (PO), THIRUVALLA VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN-689 101.
2 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
RELIANCE CENTRE, 19, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE P.O., MUMBAI, PIN-400 001,
(REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER).
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SHRI.SABU I.KOSHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.3643/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
3
2026:KER:15842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
MACA NO. 132 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.10.2019 IN OP(MV) NO.867 OF 2014 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT :-
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RELIANCE CENTRE, 19 WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001, NOW REPRESENTED BY
ITS LEGAL - CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOCHI-682036.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT :-
1 CHACKO T.S., THOMPIKALAYI HOUSE, KULAKKADU,
THIRUVALLA.P.O., PIN-689101.
2 JORTIN DANI KOSHY, S/O.KOSHY JACOB, ANJILIMOOTTIL
HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM.P.O., KUTTAPUZHA,
THIRUVALLA-689115.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SMT.V.V.RISANI
SHRI.SABU I.KOSHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.3643/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
4
2026:KER:15842
JUDGMENT
MACA Nos.132 of 2020, 225 of 2020 and 3643 of 2020 arise
from the very same award dated 04.10.2019 in O.P.(MV) No.867 of
2014 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Pathanamthitta. MACA No.132 of 2020 filed by the 2 nd
respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the liability
to pay 50% of the award amount and MACA No.225 of 2020 filed by
the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle challenging
liability to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation awarded.
MACA No.3643 of 2020 is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation and also challenging the finding of
50:50 contributory negligence on R1 and R2. Since these appeals
arise from the same cause of action, they are heard together and are
disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to
as they are arrayed before the tribunal.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
On 05.05.2014 at about 09.45 pm, while the claimant was
walking through the side of the public road, a motorcycle bearing
registration No.KL-27-C-970 ridden by the 1 st respondent in a rash
and negligent manner hit against the claimant. As a result of the
accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of
₹4,00,250/-.
3. Before the tribunal, the 1st respondent, who is the owner-
cum-rider of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement
contending that the vehicle was duly insured with the 2nd
respondent as on the date of the accident. The 1st respondent also
disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. The 2nd respondent
insurer filed a written statement contending that there was no valid
insurance policy to the offending vehicle at the date of accident. It
was further contended that they had not issued any cover note or
insurance policy to the alleged vehicle belonging to the 1 st
respondent and therefore their impleadment was unnecessary.
Before the tribunal DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9,
Exts.B1 to B6 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing
the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of
₹3,46,590/- as compensation under different heads with interest
@9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with
proportionate costs equally against the respondents 1 and 2 being
the owner and insurer.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned
counsel for the owner and the learned standing counsel appearing
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
for the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant in MACA No.3643 of
2020 is mainly claiming enhancement of the award under the
following heads :-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimant
submits that the claimant was a painter by profession and was
earning ₹16,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the
monthly income notionally only at ₹9,000/-. The learned counsel for
the appellant further submits that since the claimant was a skilled
worker, the income claimed was reasonable and hence, seeks for an
enhancement of the income fixed. It is also pointed out that in Ext.Al
First Information Statement also, the claimant has stated that he is
a painter by profession. Admittedly, no document was produced by
the claimant to prove income. Even going by the judgment in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident
that occurred in 20l4, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at
₹9,500/-. However, considering the fact the claimant was a painter,
which was recorded in Ext.A1 FIS as well, I deem it appropriate to
refix the monthly income of the claimant at ₹11,000/-.
Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the claimant
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
submits that the claimant was a painter by profession and due to the
injuries sustained in the accident, he could not go to work for almost
six months, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of three
months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. The
claimant sustained a small extradural hematoma over the right side
of head, fracture zygoma and fracture right distal forearm.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the
claimant, I am of the opinion that five months can be taken for
awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the
claimant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹55,000/-
(11000 x 5) under this head. Since the tribunal has awarded an
amount of ₹27,000/-, there will be an additional compensation of
₹28,000/- towards loss of earnings.
Loss of amenities :- Though the claimant claimed an amount of
₹60,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of
₹10,000/-, which, according to the claimant, is on the lower side.
Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and the loss of
enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total
compensation of ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the
claimant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹30,000/-
towards loss of amenities.
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
Bystander expenses - The learned counsel for the claimant
submits that the tribunal has taken only ₹200/- per day for 12 days
in patient treatment, towards bystander's expenses, which is on the
lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year
2014, I deem it appropriate to take ₹350/- per day towards
bystander's expenses. Accordingly, he will be entitled to get a total
compensation of ₹4,200/- (350 × 12) towards bystander expenses.
Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹1,800/- under
this head.
Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for the claimants
submits that the tribunal has taken only ₹200/- per day for 12 days
towards extra nourishment, which is on the lower side. Considering
the fact that the accident was in the year 2014, I deem it
appropriate to take ₹350/- per day towards extra nourishment.
Accordingly, the claimant will be entitled to get a total
compensation of ₹4,200/- (350 × 12) towards extra nourishment.
Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹1,800/- under
this head.
Permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the claimant
submits that as per Ext. A8 disability certificate issued by the
Standing Disability Assessment Board, General Hospital,
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
Pathanamthitta, the permanent disability of the claimant was
assessed as 21%, which was reduced by the tribunal to 18% while
assessing compensation. This reasoning of the tribunal does not
appear to be acceptable in view of the judgment of the apex court in
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KIT 620 SC] and this Court in
Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair (2021(5) KHC 305].
Therefore, I deem it appropriate to consider 21% disability, as
assessed in Ext.A8, disability certificate, for the purpose of
calculating compensation. Thus, following the judgments in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662
(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2)
KLT 802 (SC)], the claimant will be entitled to get a total
compensation of ₹2,49,480/- (11000×12×9×21%) towards
permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of
₹74,520/- under the head of permanent disability.
6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation
under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and
the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same
since it appears to be just and reasonable.
7. Since the appeal is of the year 2020, I fix interest on the
enhanced compensation @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
petition till realization. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is
modified as follows:
Sl.
No Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified in Total
claimed awarded by appeal compensation
the tribunal
1. Loss of earnings 72,000 27,000 28,000 55,000
2. Transport to hospital 12,000 1,000 (not modified) 1,000
3. Extra nourishment 8,000 2,400 1,800 4,200
4. Damage to clothing 5,000 1,000 (not modified) 1,000
5. Medical expenses 1,33,000 77,830 (not modified) 77,830
6. Bystander expenses 12,000 2,400 1,800 4,200
7. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 50,000 (not modified) 50,000
8. Permanent disability 2,70,000 1,74,960 74,520 2,49,480
9 Loss of amenities 60,000 10,000 30,000 40,000
TOTAL 10,00,250 3,46,590 1,36,120 4,82,710
Limited to limited to
4,00,250
8. One of the main grounds in the appeal by the insurance
company/2nd respondent in MACA 132 of 2020 is that there was no
valid policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle at the time of
accident. They relied on Ext.B5 copy of the insurance policy which
shows that the offending vehicle was insured from 12.05.2014 to
11.05.2015. It was further contended that the insurer had not
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
authorised any agent to collect the premium from the 1 st respondent
and, therefore, the insurer cannot be fastened with any liability. It
was further contended that the insurer was impleaded as a
respondent in the party array only after four years from the date of
filing of the claim petition, which shows that there was no valid
insurance policy for the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Moreover, it was also their case that the rider of the motorcycle was
chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 146 read
with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act for riding the offending
vehicle without a valid third-party insurance policy. Hence, the
learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company
submitted that the finding of the tribunal fastening liability on the
insurer to pay the award amount is liable to be set aside and that
the owner alone is liable to satisfy the award.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent/owner cum rider of the motorcycle in MACA 225 of
2020, contended that a total amount of ₹1,550/- including the
premium amount and commission charges were paid by him on
29.04.2014 to one Asha who is the agent of the insurer towards
taking the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle. It is
further submitted that though the premium amount was received on
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
29.04.2014, the insurer issued the policy only on 12.05.2014. Since
the premium had already been paid on 29.04.2014, the delay in
issuing the policy is attributable to the laches on the part of the
insurer in not issuing the policy in time. According to the learned
counsel, the premium was paid to the agent authorised by the
insurance company and the insurer had not taken any action against
the person who had received the amount in the name of the
insurance company. No complaint has been lodged by the insurer
before the competent authority regarding the alleged unauthorised
collection of premium. Since, the premium was already received on
29.04.2014, the insurer was duty bound to pay the award amount to
the claimant and it is not the responsibility of the owner of the
vehicle. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.B2 letter issued to
the company on 20.05.2014.
10. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the
claimant was not aware of the insurance policy issued in respect of
the offending vehicle. Even in the police records, it was stated that
there was no valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle at the
time of accident. Hence, the insurance company was not initially
impleaded in the party array. However, upon receipt of the written
statement filed by the 1st respondent/owner on 20.04.2016, wherein
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
it was specifically contended that the vehicle had a valid insurance
policy, the claimant took steps to implead the insurer as an
additional respondent in the party array.
11. I have considered the rival contentions raised by all
parties.
12. The question that arises for consideration is whether
Ext.B1 proposal-cum-acknowledgment was issued by an authorised
agent of the insurance company and whether there was any delay on
the part of the insurer in issuing Ext.B5 policy to the 1st
respondent/owner. According to the learned standing counsel for
the insurance company Ext.B1 proposal cum acknowledgement was
not issued by them or by their agent. In order to substantiate the
said contention, they relied on the deposition of DW2 who was the
then officer of the Manager, Legal Claims Reliance Company Ltd.
DW2 deposed before the Court that Ext.B1 was not the approved
proposal form of the company and that the approved proposal form
is Ext.B6. However, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
contended that the mobile number 9747531010 shown in the
letterhead of Ext.B1 is the very same number reflected in Ext.B5
policy.
13. During cross examination DW2 denied Ext.B2 and testified
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
that the insurer had not received any such letter. However, there is
nothing on record to show that it was sent by registered post with
acknowledgment due. No document has been produced to
substantiate the same. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ext.B2
produced by the owner of the vehicle. DW2 also testified that there
is no practice of receiving any commission amount at the time of
receipt of the premium from the agent. It was further deposed that,
as seen from Ext.B1, an additional premium amount of ₹300/- had
been collected, which was not in accordance with the standing
instructions of the company. On that basis, DW2 asserted that
Ext.B1 was not issued by an authorised agent of the insurer.
However, the 1st respondent did not mount the witness box nor did
he take any steps to examine the person who allegedly received the
premium amount from him. It is also true that, even after being
impleaded in the party array and coming to know of the contention
that Ext.B1 was not issued by an authorised agent, the insurance
company has not taken any steps against the person concerned, for
reasons best known to them. Even in Ext.B5 policy, which is
admittedly issued by the insurance company, there is no disclosure
as to how and in what manner the premium amount was received
from the owner of the vehicle. Both the owner as well as the
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
insurance company have failed to adduce proper and satisfactory
evidence in this case with regard to the payment of the premium
amount and the subsequent issuance of the insurance policy. The
learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company also
sought for one more opportunity to prove their case before the
tribunal.
14. Considering the fact that both the owner as well as the
insurance company have failed to satisfactorily prove their
respective contentions, I am of the view that one more opportunity
can be granted to them to substantiate their case regarding liability
before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the
Tribunal for the limited purpose of reconsidering the issue of
liability alone.
Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of as follows :-
(i) MACA 3643 of 2020 filed by the claimants is allowed in
part and the claimant is awarded an additional amount of
₹1,36,120/- (Rupees one lakh thirty six thousand one
hundred and twenty only) as compensation over and
above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with
interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization and proportionate costs.
(ii) MACA Nos.132 of 2020 and 225 of 2020 remanded
back to the tribunal for deciding the issue regarding the
liability alone, to pay the award amount. The parties shall
MACA NO. 3643 OF 2020 & connected cases
2026:KER:15842
adduce evidence and produce documents, if any, before
the tribunal in order to claim exoneration from the
liability.
(iii) Since the quantum of compensation has already been
determined by this Court, the Tribunal shall not revisit or
reconsider the quantum of compensation while
adjudicating the matter on remand. However, the claimant
shall be entitled to recover the amount only after a
decision is taken by the tribunal regarding the liability.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal
on 16.03.2026. Both sides are free to adduce evidence
either oral or documentary before the tribunal.
Thereafter, the tribunal shall consider and dispose of the
matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SMA
