IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 2492 OF 2010
AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P(MV) 1877/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P.(M.V):
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NSS UNION BUILDING, CHERTHALA,
REP. BY DEPUTY, MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,
REGIONAL OFFICE, "SARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD,,
ERNAKULAM - 682 011.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST&2ND RESPONDENTS IN O.P.
(M.V):
1 XAVIER, S/O.AUGUSTINE,
CHERIYATHARAYIL, C.S.P., 13,
CHERTHALA-688 552.
2 JOHN, S/O. MARTIN,
PALLIKKATHAYIL, C.S.P., 15, CHERTHALA-688 552.
3 MERCY JOSEPH, W/O.BENJAMIN JOSEPH,
PALLIKKATHAYIL HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL P.O.,
CHERTHALA-688 530.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.2492 of 2010
2
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for the respondents in this matter.
2. In this appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company, the 3rd respondent, award in O.P.(M.V) No.1877/2004 dated 19.02.2009, is under challenge on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal fastening negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent is erroneous.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the occurrence was on 30.11.2002, police registered crime in this matter on the basis of a private complaint lodged by the complainant on 23.05.2003 before the Magistrate court. It is submitted further that though police filed Ext.A3 charge M.A.C.A. No.2492 of 2010 3 sheet, attributing negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the court below failed to give emphasis to Ext.X1, copy of GD entry of Arthunkal Police Station. According to the learned counsel, as per the GD entry, on 03.12.2002 (after three days of occurrence), it was stated that the alleged offending vehicle, KL-4/D-1607 was ridden by the original petitioner himself as reported by the said petitioner and in consequence thereof, the accident occurred. Thus the police charge cannot given emphasis to find negligence, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. On perusal of Ext.X1, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner found to be having force. However, facts remain is that nobody was examined by the appellant in order to negative Ext.A3 final report. Similarly, to M.A.C.A. No.2492 of 2010 4 prove the contents of Ext.X1 and disbelieve Ext.A3 in the context of Ext.X1 also nobody was examined. In this context, the court below found negligence against the 2nd respondent acting on the police charge. Since no convincing evidence otherwise adduced to give emphasis to Ext.X1, ignoring the police charge, I am not inclined to revisit the finding of the Tribunal in the matter of negligence.
Accordingly, the challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company found against. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.
ww M.A.C.A. No.2492 of 2010 5 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE AI TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 19.2.2009 IN O.P.1877/2004 OF THE MACT, ALAPPUZHA AND TYPED COPY OF AWARD. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.12 DATED 21.10.2010 ISSUED BY MACT, ALAPPUZHA.