The insurer appealed against the tribunal's award of compensation, contending its vehicle was not involved. The court rejected this, holding that witness PW4's evidence, corroborated by PW2, sufficiently proved the vehicle's involvement, and dismissed the appeal without merit.
The appeal was dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940
OP(MV) 1014/2005 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 09-04-2012
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI 18.
BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS
W/O.RAVI, KANIYATTINKAL, UDUMBRAKKADAVU, THIRUVANNUR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 541,
( * Respondents 3 and 4 are deleted from the party array at the risk of appellant vide order dated 27.3.2014 in I.A.1029/2014)
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, PUTTANAL, PUTHUPADI, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 001.
(deleted from the party array at the risk of the appellant as per order dated 4.10.2017 in I.A.3490/2017)
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ(BY ORDER)
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.BABU, J.
JUDGMENT
accident. Respondents 1 and 2 herein being the legal representatives of Ravi claimed
compensation. Their claim was allowed by the tribunal to the extent of Rs 3,62,000/-. The appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident was taxed with the liability to compensate respondents 1 and 2. The appeal is filed contending that the vehicle insured with the appellant did not involve in the accident in which Ravi died.
3.The accident is not in dispute. Its time and date
2
MACA.2508/12
are also not disputed. Another undisputed fact is that the vehicle with plate No.KL-11M-3469 was insured with the appellant. The owner of the vehicle is admittedly the person who was arrayed as the 3rd respondent before the tribunal. The appellant disputes the involvement of KL-11M-3469 vehicle in the accident. The tribunal accepted the version of respondents 1 and 2 and therefore directed the appellant to pay compensation.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the police referred the case as undetected. Ext B3 is a copy of the negative report filed by the police under Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent before the tribunal who allegedly drove the vehicle was acquitted by the magistrate. Yet another submission was that the FIR was lodged one month after the accident and a private complaint was filed six months after the accident. All these submissions are made by the learned counsel for
MACA.2508/12
3
the appellant to contend that there has been collusion in the matter.
5.The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant may be sufficient to create a suspicion. But suspicion cannot take the place of proof. This is not a case where the claimants did not adduce any evidence to prove the accident and the involvement of vehicle No.KL-11M-3469 in the accident. Four witnesses have been examined. PW1 is the widow of Ravi. The evidence of PW1 need not be considered since she did not see the accident. What is important is the involvement of the vehicle bearing plate No.KL-11M-3469. PW3 did not speak to the plate number. The said registration number was suggested to PW1, but he spoke that he was unable to assert. The claimants did not gain anything by the examination of PW3. His evidence therefore is liable to be eschewed.
4
MACA.2508/12
happened in front of the Salafi masjid at Panniyankara. He spoke further that he saw the accident on his way to the said masjid for his early morning prayers. PW4 asserted that the plate number of the vehicle was KL-11M-3469. He was cross-examined. He spoke in cross-examination that he gave a statement to the police mentioning the plate number of the vehicle. I have read the evidence of PW4 in its completeness. I do not find any reason to disbelieve his evidence. I am not shown any statement of his in crossexamination to disbelieve him. I am in complete agreement with the tribunal that the evidence of PW4 inspires confidence.
MACA.2508/12
5
trial before the court of the chief judicial magistrate he stated KL-11M-3469 as the number of the vehicle. There was no attempt in crossexamination to contradict his said assertion with the evidence he gave before the chief judicial magistrate. The evidence of PW2 on the registration number of the vehicle as corrected by him lends a fine support to the evidence of PW4. Therefore PW2's evidence can be read as a corroborative piece of evidence lending support to the evidence of PW4.
8.After having considering the matters in their completeness, I am in complete agreement with the tribunal that the claimants could prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11M-3469. The appellant did not do anything before the tribunal to establish its case except cross-examining the witnesses produced by the claimants. The appellant could have examined the person arrayed as the 4th respondent in the application to rebut
MACA.2508/12
6
the evidence produced on the side of the claimants. The appeal is without any merit. The same deserves only a dismissal.
9.Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.BABU Judge
Mrcs/6.6.
/True copy/
P.S.To Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the motor accident claim should be allowed despite the insurer's contention that its insured vehicle was not involved in the accident.
Whether the evidence produced by the claimants sufficiently proved the involvement of the specific vehicle in the accident.
Whether the default of the保险人 to examine the alleged driver to rebut the evidence of witnesses amounts to negligence.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
T. PUSHPA
PRATHIBA
A.M.BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
