Girija T.N vs Suresh
2026 Latest Caselaw 875 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 875 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Girija T.N vs Suresh on 29 January, 2026

                                             2026:KER:6186

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947

                    MACA NO. 629 OF 2014

        AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.01.2014 IN OPMV NO.258

OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

             GIRIJA T.N.
             THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM


             BY ADV SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1        SURESH
             CHERUTHURUTHY HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.

    2        RADHAKRISHNAN
             THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALAKKADAVU, KARAPUZHA P.O.,
             KOTTAYAM.

    3        THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             KANJIKUZHY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL
             MANAGER, KOTTAYAM.


             BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS        APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2026, THE       COURT ON 29.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2026:KER:6186
                                 2
MACA NO. 629 OF 2014



                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.258

of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Kottayam, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by

the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents

before the tribunal.

2. The case of claimant was that on 15.04.2010, while

the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing

Reg.No.KL-5/AA-4719, ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash

and negligent manner, fell down, and she sustained serious

injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming

compensation.

3. The first respondent/rider and the second

respondent/owner of the motorcycle remained ex-parte before

the tribunal. The third respondent, insurer, filed a written

statement admitting the insurance policy for the motorcycle

but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and

further contended that the claimant did not sustain any injury.

Before the tribunal Exts. A1 to A4 and Ext X1 were marked.

The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on 2026:KER:6186

MACA NO. 629 OF 2014

record, dismissed the claim petition.

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 accident occurred on 15.04.2010, and on sustaining

injuries, she was taken to Bharath Hospital, Kottayam, where

she underwent treatment as an inpatient. Since the police did

not register any case, a private complaint was filed by the

claimant and hence the FIR could be registered only on

20.09.2010. Ext.A2 charge sheet was drawn against the rider

of the motorcycle. The petitioner also relied on Ext.A4 series

of duplicate bills and Ext.A3 letter dated 09.10.2012 issued

from Bharat Hospital, Kottayam, wherein it is stated that she

was treated as an inpatient from 15.04.2010 onwards. It is

also submitted that though the appellant was seriously injured

and was eligible for compensation, the tribunal, without any

proper consideration of the documents produced, dismissed

the claim petition.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the

insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the 2026:KER:6186

MACA NO. 629 OF 2014

claimant failed to produce satisfactory documents to prove

that an accident occurred on 15.04.2010 and that she had

sustained injuries and had undergone treatment in Bharath

Hospital, Kottayam. The learned standing counsel for the

insurance company further submitted though Ext.P3 letter

was issued, the letter was dated 2012, whereas the treatment

was alleged to have been undergone in the year 2010. Ext.A3

certificate was not proved by adducing evidence. According to

the learned standing counsel for the insurance company, no

such accident as alleged had occurred and she did not sustain

any injuries in the said accident. The tribunal has rightly

dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by

both sides.

8. It is the case of the appellant that she met with an

accident on 15.04.2010 and sustained serious injuries due to

the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent. Ext.A4

series are the medical bills for an amount of ₹2,339/-. The

bills are not the original bills but are the duplicate ones.

Further, Ext.A3 certificate was produced by the appellant

from Bharat Hospital, Kottayam, which reads as follows:-

2026:KER:6186

MACA NO. 629 OF 2014

"This is to certify that Ms. Girija T.N., 34/F, had a fall from bike on 15.04.2010, suffered comminuted intra-articular fracture upper end left tibia. She was conservatively treated with long leg cast and discharged on 17.04.2010. Plaster removal done after six weeks and physiotherapy started. She is continuing physiotherapy."

9. Ext.A2 charge sheet was drawn finding negligence

on the part of the first respondent in this case. The insurance

company, though denying the accident and claiming that the

appellant suffered no injuries, failed to adduce any evidence

to challenge the charge sheet produced by the

claimant/appellant. No contra evidence was adduced by the

insurance company to disprove it. The charge sheet was

drawn six months post the alleged accident. However, it was

the burden of the insurance company to adduce rebuttal

evidence. The documents produced by the claimant are not

sufficient enough to support the claim put forward by the

claim petitioner.