Appeal by State and Insurance Officer against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Court upheld award directing insurance company to pay compensation, finding charge sheet sufficient proof of negligence and rejecting late plea of mechanical defect.
The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal's award allowing compensation of Rs.64,150/- is upheld.
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
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 58/2009 DATED 17-09-2012 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KASARAGOD
APPELLANTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 A.KANAKAM W/O.M.K.MOHANAN,R/AT KOTAKKUNNU,PALLIKERE VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,P.O.PALLIKERE,PIN-671316.
R1 BY ADV. K.ANAND
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-09-2020, THE COURT ON 17-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of September 2020
The appellants were the respondents 2 to 4 in OP(MV) No.58 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The 1st respondent in the appeal was the claimant before the Tribunal, who filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of a motor accident that took place on 8.12.2005. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the appeal.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
3
registration No.KL-01/AA-4830, due to the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, met with an accident. The vehicle capsized and the 1st respondent sustained serious injuries as mentioned in column no.1 of the claim petition. Accordingly, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
4
The 1st respondent produced and marked Exts.A1 to A5 in evidence. The 2nd appellant produced the insurance policy, which was marked as Ext.B1 in evidence.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
5
the vehicle had developed a mechanical defect. Hence, no negligence can be attributed on the 2nd respondent-Driver. Moreover, the onus of proof was on the 1st respondent to establish that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manoj Bisla & Ors [AIR 2012 (SC) 1918].
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
6
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minu
B.Mehta and another V. Balkrishna
Ramachandra Nayan and antoher [AIR 1977 SCC 1248] which reads thus:-
“12. x x x x x x
We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning of the Claims Tribunal that the evidence on the side of the owners is contradictory and the testimony of the expert destroys the plea of any mechanical defect set up by them. In this connection we may also point out that in order to succeed in a defence that the accident was due to a mechanical defect the owners will have to prove that they had taken all necessary precautions and kept the lorry in a roadworthy condition. No such attempt was made to establish that all necessary precautions were taken to keep the lorry in a roadworthy condition and that the defect occurred in spite of the reasonable care and caution taken by the owners.”
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
7
the appeal may be dismissed.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
8
statutory/charging provision under any enactment of such nature for the said offence. The Police also did not refer the case after investigation, but filed the final report. The Tribunal on the basis of Exts.A1 and A2 came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent.
Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] has held as follows:-
“7. In this context we feel it appropriate to refer to the practice adopted by many Tribunals in the State. Wherever a crime has been registered in respect of the accident and the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge sheet by the police, such charge sheet is filed and the same is reckoned as sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the indictee, the practice has not received formal judicial approval and hence some Tribunals insist on oral evidence in support of negligence invariably. This consumes a lot of judicial time and the heavily over worked Tribunal spends its time on unnecessary oral evidence of negligence. We would certainly not want the Tribunals to be prisoners of the conclusions of police officers. If the Tribunal finds it suspicious, it can insist for better evidence. But as a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
9
the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust of the police. Prima facie, charge sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. If any one of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced by any party, in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunals should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence and in such a case the charge sheet will pale into insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence. In all other cases such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We mean to say that on production of such charge sheet the shifting of burden must take place. It is not as though we are not conscious of the dangers and pit falls involved in such an approach. But we feel that adoption and recognition of such practice would help to reduce the length of the long queue for justice before the Tribunals. The judicial recognition of the practice will help the Tribunals to ensure the optimum use of judicial time at their disposal for productive ventures.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
10
law in Pazhaniammal (supra), which has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd, Thalassery V. Ramla and others [2016 (4) KHC 891] and Exts.A1 and A2, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly found that it was due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent that the accident occurred and the 1st respondent sustained injuries.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
11
have mounted the box and let in any evidence to substantiate their defence. Only Ext.B1 insurance policy was produced to prove that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd appellant.
MACA.No.1834 OF 2013
12
paragraph 19 of the judgment that like any other common law principle which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher can be followed at least until any other new principle which excels the former can be evolved or until legislation provides differently.
In view of the ratio decidendi in Kaushnuma Begum and Minu B.Mehta (supra); Pazhaniammal and Ramla (supra); Exts.A1 and A2 and the reluctance of respondents of letting in any contra evidence, I uphold the award passed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
ska
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are liable to pay the compensation awarded to the 1st respondent by the Tribunal.
Whether the insurance company can deny liability based on alleged mechanical defect without pleading it in written statement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manoj Bisla & OrsReferred¶38
[AIR 2012 (SC) 1918] · Who else cites this
Minu B.Mehta and another V. Balkrishna Ramachandra Nayan and antoherRelied on¶43
[AIR 1977 SCC 1248] · Who else cites this
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. PazhaniammalRelied on¶57
[2011 (3) KLT 648]
National Insurance Company Ltd, Thalassery V. Ramla and othersRelied on¶66
[2016 (4) KHC 891]
Kaushnuma Begum (Smt) & Ors v The New India Assurance Co.Ltd & OrsRelied on¶72
[2001 (2) SCC 9] · Who else cites this
Rylands v FletcherExplained¶73
Rylands v Fletcher
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA
DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER KASARAGOD
STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD
A. KANAKAM
K.S. MOHAMMED SALEEM
C.S. DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
