Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs John Pauls on 5 April, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
MACA NO. 2911 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.04.2018 IN O.P(M.V) NO.884 OF 2015 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
ALUVA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 'SHARANYA', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JOHN PAULS,
S/O.JOHN, CHUNGATH HOUSE, NEW CHURCH ROAD,
KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICGT, PIN-680 523.
BY ADV SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.2911 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of April, 2024 The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur (for short 'the Tribunal') on 30.04.2018 in O.P(M.V) No.884/2015. The appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the motor accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.
3. The allegation in the Original Petition was that at about 11 p.m on 20.07.2011 while he was driving an Omnivan bearing registration No.KL-8AG-7585 in moderate speed and with due care and caution, a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-7/AA-8627 dashed against it due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and M.A.C.A.No.2911 of 2019 3 thereby he sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to Alshifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna for treatment and therefrom was referred to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur. There he was treated only for a single day and was transported to KIMS Hospital, Edapally. Treatment was continued there as inpatient from 23.07.2011 till 02.08.2011. Original Petition was filed seeking a sum of `14,50,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The driver, the registered owner and insurer of the lorry, were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition.
4. Respondents were served with notice. Respondents 1 and 2 did not turn up to contest the Original Petition and therefore were declared as ex parte by the Tribunal. 3rd respondent filed written statement admitting issuance of a certificate of insurance for the lorry bearing registration No.KL-07AA-8627, covering the date of the motor accident. Negligence alleged against M.A.C.A.No.2911 of 2019 4 the 1st respondent was denied and sought to be attributed to the petitioner. Compensation claimed is also disputed for its exorbitance.
5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 series and C1 were marked on the side of the petitioner. PW1 and PW2 were also examined. Respondents cross examined them. But no circumstances were brought out in the cross examination to discredit them. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. In that backdrop, the Tribunal found the driver of the lorry responsible for causing the motor accident by his rash and negligent driving. Thus the Tribunal arrived at a sum of `4,11,400/- as the compensation payable.
6. According to the learned Senior Counsel, when a crime was registered against the petitioner immediately after the motor accident and after holding investigation in it, a final report was laid, chargesheeting the petitioner himself for rash and negligent driving of the Omnivan, the M.A.C.A.No.2911 of 2019 5 Tribunal is unjustified in finding the 1 st respondent responsible for causing the motor accident. The final report chargesheeting the petitioner is also marked before the Tribunal in evidence as Ext.A4. According to him, Ext.A4 forms prima facie evidence of negligence and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have relied on other evidence adduced before it to arrive at a finding on the contrary.
7. The learned counsel canvassed in the context that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability among the driver of the lorry who was the 1st respondent in the Original Petition and the petitioner who was driving the Omnivan at the relevant time. Apart from the challenge raised against fixation of liability, other challenges were not found raised in the appeal on hand.
8. True that a crime was registered against the petitioner and after completion of investigation a final report was also laid against him. But in the trial held M.A.C.A.No.2911 of 2019 6 before the Magistrate, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, negligence alleged against the petitioner was not proved by the prosecution and thereby he was acquitted for the offence under Section 279 IPC. That judgment was not challenged in appeal. Thus, the judgment of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur acquitting the petitioner has become final. Copy of the judgment also formed part of the evidence as Ext.A7.
9. Apart from that the petitioner was examined before the Tribunal as PW1 and a witness who claimed to have seen the motor accident was also examined as PW2. They were also elaborately cross examined by the insurer. But nothing liable to discredit them was brought out. On the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs 1 and 2, the Tribunal found the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-7AA-8627 rash and negligent in driving it and causing the motor accident. Therefore, apart from Ext.A7, M.A.C.A.No.2911 of 2019 7 the judgment of a court of law finding the petitioner not guilty for an offence of rash and negligent driving of the Omnivan and causing the motor accident was also available for the Tribunal and relying on those, it found the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry liable for causing the motor accident. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the lorry has caused the motor accident by his rash and negligent driving. For the above reasons, the urge of the learned counsel for the insurer to apportion the liability among the driver of the lorry and the petitioner proportionately is discarded being devoid of any basis.
Appeal fails for the reasons and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB