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
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
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
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
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,
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
