Kerala High Court
Justin Raj R.S vs Jayakumar on 17 February, 2025
2025:KER:22250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 968 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.07.2012 IN OPMV NO.128 OF 2005 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT:
JUSTIN RAJ R.S.
S/O.RATNARAJAN, SANTHA SHADHANAM, NANNANKUZHI,
KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., BALARAMAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JAYAKUMAR
KOTTAIKAKATH VEEDU, THIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.
2 THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 2ND FLOOR,
SWADESHABIMANI COMPLEX, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.
3 RAJENDRAN K.
S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, VATTAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOTTUKALKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., -695 509.
4 JOSE
S/O.BHASKARAN, MANAKALATHUNDATHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU,
VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695
123.
BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN- SC
MACA NO. 968 OF 2013 2
2025:KER:22250
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 968 OF 2013 3
2025:KER:22250
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 128/2005 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, is the appellant herein. (For the
purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank
before the Tribunal).
2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained
in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.10.2004. According to the
petitioner, on 27.10.2004 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle
along the Punnakulma - Puthalam public road, an autorickshaw bearing
Reg.No, KL-01-AC-8105 , came from Punnakulam to Puthalam in a rash and
negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result
of the accident, the petitioner was thrown to the road and sustained serious
injuries including fractures.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner of the autorickshaw, the 2 nd
respondent is the insurer, 3rd respondent is the owner of the motorcycle and
Additional 4th respondent is the driver of the autorickshaw. According to the
petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the additional 4 th
2025:KER:22250
respondent, driver of the autorickshaw.
4. The insurance company filed a written statements, admitting the
accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the
respective drivers.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence
Exts.A1 to A12 and B1.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that
the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and dismissed the
claim petition.
7. Aggrieved by the above finding of the Tribunal, the applicant
preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the petitioner, as found by the Tribunal?
9. Heard Sri. R.T Pradeep, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Dinesh Mathew J Muricken, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the tribunal
was not justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of
2025:KER:22250
the petitioner. The tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground
that in the wound certificate prepared after examining the petitioner as well as
the pillion rider of the motorcycle it was stated that there was smell of
alcohol. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the
petitioner who was riding the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol.
Therefore, the tribunal was not justified in holding that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sherin J. Thankom v.
Thankam [2014 ACJ 2673], in support of his argument that the proceeding
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, strict evidence as in the case of
a criminal proceeding or civil proceeding, is not required. In para 15, the
Division bench of the Apex Court held that:-
"15. Prima facie we find that the reasoning given by the
Tribunal in the impugned common award is in conflict
with the principle laid down in the judgments of the Apex
Court referred to above. In deciding matters arising out of
accident cases, the Tribunal should bear in mind the
caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal
case nor a civil case. In a claim before the Tribunal, the
standard of proof is much below than what is required in a
criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before
the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of
which the Tribunal can arrive at or decide things
2025:KER:22250
necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. In
such circumstances, we hold that the reasoning given by
the Tribunal in the impugned common award, in order to
reject the claim petitions filed by the appellants, are
unsustainable and the said common award is liable to be
set aside in these appeals."
12. In this case the petitioner produced Ext.A1, a factual report
prepared by the investigation officer in Crime No. 313/2014 Vizinjam police
station, in which it is specifically stated that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw, namely the additional 4th
respondent. The law is well settled that the final report filed by the police in
the crime registered in respect of the accident is prima facie evidence of
negligence on the part of the accused in the crime. Since there is no contra
evidence in this case, the tribunal ought to have found that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw. In the above
circumstances, the tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition
on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove negligence against the driver
of the autorickshaw.
13. The above circumstances, this matter requires fresh
consideration by the tribunal for determining the quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioner, and as such, this appeal is allowed, and the
2025:KER:22250
matter is remanded back to the tribunal for disposal as per the rules.
14. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on
20.03.2025. Considering the fact that this O.P. of the 2005, the tribunal is
directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest, at any rate within a period of
six months from 20.03.2025.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
vnk/-
