The High Court quashed the MACT award to the extent it found negligence without appreciating evidence post-criminal acquittal, remanding the issue of the cause of accident for fresh consideration.
The award set aside regarding findings on negligence and reason for accident; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration within four months.
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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 2378 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 406/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2:
1KARUVACHANKANDIYIL KHALID
AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.SOOPPI HAJI, RESIDING AT KARUVACHAN
KANDIYIL HOUSE, KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. THUVAKKUNNU,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF THE JEEP
BEARING NO.KL 10/F-3742)
2K.K.YOUSUF
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.SOOPPI HAJI, RESIDING AT KARUVACHAN KANDIYIL HOUSE,
KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. THUVAKKUNNU, THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.3:
1SHUHAIB K,AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.YOUSAF, RESIDING AT KUKKERI HOUSE, KOLAVALLUR AMSOM
DESOM, P.O.THUVAKKUNNU, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT
670101
2THE MANAGER,NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,
THALASSERY, KEYIS SHOPPING/COMPLEX, NARANGAPPURAM,
THALASSERY, (POLICY NO.571102/31/08/67000010343) 670101
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.SAJID
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN-R2
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SHIFA LATHEEF(K/1347/2016)
MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.(K/001039/2022)-R1
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 2378/2015
2
JUDGMENT
The appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(MV) No.406/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition unless otherwise specifically mentioned.
MACA 2378/2015 3
respectively of the Jeep filed joint written statement contending that the Jeep was validly insured with 3rd respondent insurance company. It was further contended that
the petitioner sustained injuries by falling from the motor bike on which he was travelling as pillion rider and that the case has been cooked up to get compensation. It is also stated that the Police did not register any case and that the petitioner filed private complaint much later pursuant to which the FIR was registered and after conclusion of trial, the Tribunal acquitted the 1st respondent of the charges. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive.
MACA 2378/2015
4
respondent-owner of the Jeep is vicariously liable. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.94,800/- with 8% interest per annum with proportionate costs as compensation to the petitioner. Since the Jeep was not having a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and the respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally made liable to pay compensation.
place as alleged in the claim petition. It is contended by the appellants that the alleged accident took place on 31.08.2008 and FIR was registered only on 16.03.2009, long after the accident pursuant to a private complaint filed by the petitioner. The appellants would contend that, after the trial, the 1st respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under sections 279 and 338, IPC. It is
MACA 2378/2015 5
further contended that the petitioner did not give any evidence before the Tribunal to prove the accident and that the Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record, found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1st respondent.
“.... Although the police filed final report, after trial by judgment dated 18-08-11 in CC.432/09 R1 was totally acquitted from the charges levelled against him u/s.279 and 338 IPC. In the said circumstance, R1 and R2 would canvass that R1 did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accident happened. This Tribunal is not impressed by the said argument. Although by
MACA 2378/2015
6
Ext.B3, learned CJM has acquitted R1 in the judgment, there is no finding that no accident had happened, but what has been found out in the judgment is that the minor petitioner sustained injury in a road accident and he was immediately taken to the hospital whereas there are no eye witness who have identified the incident as well as R1. In the said circumstances only learned CJM chose to acquit R1. That is not a ground to be taken into consideration in the compensation proceedings before the MACT. The Tribunal can arrive at an independent finding regarding the accident and its cause. On a consideration of the evidence produced before this Tribunal, this Tribunal finds that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving by R1 of the offending Jeep bearing registration No. KL10F/3742. As the contra evidence is not satisfactory, the evidence of the petitioner is accepted and the issue of negligence is found against R1.”
It is trite that the finding of a Criminal Court is not binding
on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and that the Tribunal can arrive at an independent finding regarding the accident and its cause. However, in the award impugned, there is no independent finding by the Tribunal regarding the accident and its cause. Though it is stated by the Tribunal that on a consideration of the evidence produced, the accident
MACA 2378/2015
7
happened due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, there is absolutely no discussion or appreciation of the evidence. It is for the petitioner to prove the accident and its cause. In the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent of its finding regarding negligence and 'reason for the accident'. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on issue No.1 with opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Since the alleged accident is stated to have occurred in the year 2008, it will be in the interest of justice if the Tribunal takes up the matter and disposes of the same not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
spc/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in finding negligence without appreciating evidence given the criminal court's acquittal.
Whether the impugned award regarding the cause of the accident should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Karuvachankandiyl Khalid
K.K. Yousef
Shuhaib K
The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Murali Purushothaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court