Kerala High Court
Jamsheera vs Narayanan on 31 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
MACA NO. 37 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 539/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JAMSHEERA (MINOR)
D/O.JAMEELA, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
JAMEELA, SRAMPIKKAL HOUSE, MANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 NARAYANAN
2/228, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKUNNU, MANNUR
WEST P.O., PALAKKAD.
2 SUSEELA
W/O.NARAYANAN, 2/228, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE,
KOTTAKKUNNU, MANNUR WEST P.O., PALAKKAD.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.37 of 2013 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.37 of 2013
------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP(MV)
No.539 of 2009 challenging the impugned award by which her claim
petition was dismissed.
2. The appellant, a 13 year old girl, met with a road traffic
accident on 17.01.2008 at 9 a.m while she was walking through the
side of Ambalapara Mannur road. According to the appellant, KL-
09V/5655 Maruti Alto car knocked her down and she sustained
serious injuries. She was treated at Valluvanad hospital for a long
period. She approached the Tribunal through her guardian/next
friend-mother claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakh. The Tribunal,
finding that the registration number of the offending vehicle stated
by the appellant in her claim petition was different from the charge
sheet, and also finding that the appellant could not prove before
court that she sustained the injuries mentioned in the discharge
summary in the alleged road traffic accident occurred on
17.01.2008, dismissed her claim, and that is under challenge.
3. Now let us see whether any interference is called for in the
impugned award.
4. Though the appellant alleged that, she sustained injuries in
a road traffic accident occurred on 17.01.2008 and immediately
after the accident, she was taken to Valluvanad hospital for
treatment, no wound certificate was produced by her to prove the
injuries or its history. If she was admitted to Valluvanad hospital
with history of a road traffic accident, in normal course, intimation
might have been given to Police from the hospital itself. But, no
such intimation was given and no crime was registered by the Police
immediately after her admission in hospital. Admittedly, on
31.03.2008, FIR was registered by Police on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the appellant which was after 2½ months of the
incident. The explanation given by the appellant was that, she was
under the impression that intimation was sent to Police from the
hospital, and later she came to know that, no such intimation was
given, and then only she filed a private complaint. The
respondent/insurer produced Ext.B1 copy of the private complaint
filed by the complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Palakkad. In that complaint, the registration number of
the offending vehicle was shown as KL-9U/5655. In Ext.A4 charge
sheet also, the registration number of the offending vehicle was
shown as KL-9U/5655. But, in Ext.A3 AMVI report, the registration
number of the offending vehicle was shown as KL-9V/5655. The
R.C owner of that vehicle was the 1 st respondent Narayanan.P,
Puthanpurackal, Kottakunnu, Mannur West. The owner and driver
of KL-9V/5655 Maruti Car remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer would
submit that, the registration number of the offending vehicle was
KL-9V/5655 but Ext.B1 private complaint, Ext.A1 FIR and Ext.A4
charge sheet will show that the vehicle involved in the incident was
KL-9U/5655.
6. Since the letter 'U' and 'V' are similar in writing, it might
have been a clerical error from the part of the claimant in writing
the registration number of the offending vehicle in the private
complaint as KL-9U/5655. But, during investigation, the AMVI
physically examined that vehicle and then its number was noted
was KL-9V/5655. Again when the number of that vehicle was
written in the charge sheet, the very same mistake was repeated by
the Police also and the number written could be read as KL-
9U/5655. If the number of the vehicle mentioned in the private
complaint was not the actual number of the vehicle inspected by
the AMVI, the Police could not have prepared charge sheet against
the 2nd respondent for driving that car. So, in all probability, 'KL-9V'
was mistakenly written as 'KL-9U' because of similarity of English
letter 'V' and 'U'. So, we cannot blindly reject the case of the
appellant on the ground that, the registration number of the vehicle
stated in the private complaint and charge sheet was different from
the registration number of the vehicle stated in the claim petition.
7. The appellant did not produce the wound certificate issued
from Valluvanad hospital though she produced Ext.A11 series
medical bills issued from that hospital from 17.01.2008 onwards.
Exts.A6 and A7 discharge summaries also will mention any road
traffic accident. Moreover, the injuries noted in Exts.A6 and A7
were burns back of both thighs. But, according to Ext.A4 charge
sheet, the injuries were on right knee, left hand, cheek and
buttock. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the injuries
shown in the discharge summary were not tallying with the injuries
noted in the charge sheet. So also the appellant failed to prove
that, she had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident narrated
in Ext.A4 charge sheet.
8. Learned counsel Sri.L Rajesh Narayan, appearing for the
appellant prayed for an opportunity to prove the injuries and its
history by producing relevant documents, for which he prayed for a
remand.
9. As we have seen, regarding the registration number of the
vehicle involved in the accident, 'V' might have been mistakenly
noted as 'U'. But regarding the injuries, the appellant was duty
bound to prove before the Tribunal with supporting documents, that
she sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on
17.01.2008, involving the offending vehicle. The appellant was a
13 year old girl at the time of accident and there is evidence to
show that, on 17.01.2008 she was admitted in Valluvanad hospital,
Ottapalam and was discharged on 23.01.2008. Again on
27.02.2008, she was admitted in that hospital and was discharged
on 08.03.2008. Ext.A11 series medical bills support the expenses
incurred for her treatment.
10. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that
the appellant can be given an opportunity to prove her case with
supporting documents, which has to be done within a specified
period.
11. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the
case is remanded to the Tribunal for affording an opportunity to the
claimant to prove that, she sustained the injuries mentioned in
Ext.A6 and A7 discharge cards in the road traffic accident occurred
on 17.01.2008, by producing the wound certificate and also by
proving the cause of injury. The Tribunal also has to find out,
whether the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate were
tallying with the injuries mentioned in the charge sheet as well as in
the discharge cards. The Tribunal has to reconsider her claim in the
light of further evidence, if any, adduced by the claimant.
Registry is directed to transmit the lower court records
forthwith. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 14.09.2022.
The Tribunal shall dispose the case within a further period of two
months from the date of appearance of the parties.
The appeal is allowed to that extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
