The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a motor accident claim. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in finding no negligence despite a police charge sheet establishing the same, and awarded compensation.
Compensation of Rs.23,509/- with interest at 6% per annum and a cost of Rs.3000/- awarded to the appellant.
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
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
MACA NO. 588 OF 2011
THE AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM IN OP(M.V.) NO.1933 OF 2006
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
P.R.SUDAMONI, POOVATHOLIL
CHAMAMPATHAL P.O., VAZHOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS KACHIRAMATTOM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:
BY ADV SMT.S.JAYASREE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:2:-
Dated this the 14th day of September,2021
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P (MV) No.1933/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:3:-
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent who was also the owner of the jeep. The 2nd respondent was the insurer of the jeep. The appellant was a tailor by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3500/-. Hence, the appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,65,500/- from the respondents.
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:4:-
appellant and her father were only gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the 2nd respondent was not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent of its liability to pay the compensation. Hence, the 2nd respondent prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed.
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:5:-
respondent.
10 The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal was justifiable or not ?.
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:6:-
respondent - driver of the jeep was negligent and consequently allowed the claim petition. In the second claim petition filed by the appellant, the Tribunal took a diametrically opposite view and held that the appellant has not proved the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.
v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] has
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:7:-
categorically held that the production of the charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Charge sheet can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the accused driver. If any party do not accept such charge sheet, then the burden is on the such party to adduce oral evidence and discredit the charge sheet; only then the charge sheet fall into pale of insignificance.
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:8:-
Tribunal based on conjectures has arrived at the finding that the appellant has failed to prove the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, which according to me is erroneous and unsustainable in law. In the above facutal and legal background, I hold that the finding of the Tribunal that the 1st respondent was not negligent in causing the accident is errenous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I hold that the 1st respondent was negligent in causing the accident and he is liable to pay the compensation amount because the insurer has already been exonerated as the vehicle was covered only by an ‘Act Policy’.
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:9:-
below:-
| Sl.No | Head of claim | Amount awarded Tribunal (in rupees |
by the ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Transport to hospital |
500 | |
| 2 | Extra nourishment | 500 | |
| 3 | Damage to clothings |
500 | |
| 4 | Bystander expenses |
300 | |
| 5 | Medical expenses | 1709 | |
| 6 | Loss of income | 6000 | |
| 7 | Pain and sufferings. |
9000 |
M.A.C.A.No.588/2011
-:10:-
| 8 | Loss of amenities | 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Compensation for permanent disability |
Not allowed |
| 10. | Loss of earning | Not allowed |
| power | ||
| Total | 23,509/- |
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the findings of the Tribunal that the appellant had failed to prove the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, but confirming that the appellant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.23,509/-. The first respondent is ordered to pay the above compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and a cost of Rs.3000/-. The Tribunal shall, on the deposit being made by the 1st respondent, disburse the compensation amount with interest and cost to the appellant in accordance with law.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
rmm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition for failure to prove negligence when a charge sheet established the same.
Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs.23,509/-.
Whether the conflicting findings in two separate claims arising from the same accident warrant a fresh appreciation of evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. PazhaniammalFollowed¶45
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.R. SUDAMONI
MOHANAN.V.V AND OTHER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
C.S. DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
