On Appeal against Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim due to alleged delays and conspiracy, the High Court found lack of evidence for conspiracy and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
Impugned award set aside and O.P. (MV) No.2480/2001 remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
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.
1
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2480/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
BAHULEYAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN CHITHIRA HOUSE, NOCHIMA DESAM,, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, N.A.D.P.O. ALUVA.
BY ADVS. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SRI.P.M.NATESAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PRADEEPAN, S/O.VISUMBHARAN, VALAVANADITHARA HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE,, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN-686 143.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN-682304 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. MATTETHARA BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. BY ADVS. SRI.VPK.PANICKER SMT.SARAH SALVY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.2480/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.
3
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
Hospital, Palarivattom. The 2nd respondent was mistakenly impleaded as the insurer of the scooter. In fact, it was the 3rd respondent, who was the insurer of the scooter. The appellant claimed that he was a Lab Technician by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.8231/-. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
4
5
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
perspective. According to him, there was delay in filing the complaint because the appellant sustained serious injuries and was hospitalised. It was only after he recovered, that he came to learn that the Police had not registered a crime. Consequently, the appellant filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same was referred to the Police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which Ext.A2 FIR was registered. Thereafter, the Police conducted the investigation and filed Ext.A1 charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Aluva against the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1st respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded guilty to the charges and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,900/-. Moreover, the appellant adduced evidence to corroborate the pleadings and proved Exts.A1 to A11. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition on hyper technicalities and on the ground of delay in setting the law into motion. Instead, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the
6
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
claim petition as prayed for.
(i). Whether the dismissal of the claim petition is justifiable.
(ii). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
7
Questions (i) and (ii)
8
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
accident. Accordingly, Ext.A1 charge sheet was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate as C.C.No.67/2001. The 1st respondent appeared in the case and pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. He was convicted and sentenced as evidenced by Ext.A5 judgment. Therefore, the appellant has clearly proved the fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent.
vs. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] has categorically held that, as a general rule, production of the charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a 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, the burden is on such party to adduce oral evidence and discredit the charge sheet; only then the charge sheet will fall into a pale of insignificance.
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
9
judgment, which proves that the 1st respondent was convicted and sentenced.
10
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
for fresh consideration, especially because the Tribunal has not considered the issues that are germane to the 'lis' between the parties. Therefore, to subserve the ends of justice, I set aside the impugned award and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
11
MACA NO. 966 OF 2011
In the result, I allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned award and remit O.P.(MV) No.2480/2001 back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and in accordance with law, untrammeled by any observation in this judgment. The Tribunal shall afford the parties an opportunity of being heard and permit them to raise their contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal, either in person or through the counsel, on 04.10.2021 . Keeping in mind the fact that the claim petition is of the year 2001, I direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
SD/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE
rkc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal was justifiable.
Whether the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. PazhaniammalRelied on¶51
[2011 (3) KLT 648] New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pazhaniammal
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. PazhaniammalRelied on¶63
Pazhaniammal (supra)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bahuleyan
Pradeepan
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
C.S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
