Kerala High Court
Satheesh vs The Managing Director, Kerala State ... on 22 January, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 718/2019 :1:
2025:KER:4822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 718 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.12.2018 IN O.P(MV) NO.799 OF 2012 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SATHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.SISUPALAN, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKONAM,
MUTUKURUNJI, ADAYAMAN.P.O., KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV N.K.KARNIS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 SALEEMKUMAR, S/O.VISWANATHAN, VATTAKALATHIL VEEDU, ANDOOR,
KURUNJITHANAM VILLAGE-686 001, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
R1 BY SRI. MAHESH N, SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2025, THE COURT ON 22.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 718/2019 :2:
2025:KER:4822
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 718 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 799 of
2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 04.05.2010, at about 4.15
p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, KSRTC bus driven by the 2nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction
caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he fell down and sustained
serious injuries.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A10
were marked from the side of the petitioner. No evidence was adduced
from the side of the respondents.
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal arrived at a
finding that the petitioner failed to prove negligence or rashness on the
part of the 2nd respondent and hence, dismissed the petition with costs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
respondents.
2025:KER:4822
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the petitioner
was examined as PW1 and in the chief affidavit, it is categorically stated
that KSRTC bus driven by the 2nd respondent from the opposite side in
overspeed and in a negligent manner caused to hit the front handle of
the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner and hence, the accident
occurred. In cross examination also, PW1 reiterated that the 2nd
respondent was driving the bus in overspeed and he denied the
suggestion that the accident occurred because of his negligence.
7. Exhibit A4 is the copy of the final report filed by the police after
investigation and the conclusion of the Investigating Officer is that while
the petitioner was riding the motor cycle and while turning a curve in the
road, he lost control and thereby, the motorcycle caused to hit the
KSRTC bus, which was stopped at a distance and therefore, the
Investigating Officer filed report to refer the case as motor occurrence.
8. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and
Others (2011(3) KHC 595), this Court held that as a general rule,
production of the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of
negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor
vehicles Act. In the said decision, it was also held that if any one of the
2025:KER:4822
parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such
party to adduce oral evidence and if oral evidence is adduced by any
party in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunals should give
further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence and in such a
case, the charge sheet will pale into insignificance and the dispute will
have to be decided on the basis of the evidence. It was further held that
in all other cases, such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient
evidence of negligence in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Mathew
Alexander v. Muhammed Shafi (2023 INSC 621) shows that strict
proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner
need not be established by the claimants and that the claimants need
only to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. In the said case, it was also held that the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the
petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road
traffic accident.
2025:KER:4822
10. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited the decision
of this Court in Krishnakumar v. Madhu [2019 (3) KLT 274], wherein
it was held that in the event the Tribunal finds that the chargesheet laid
by the Police which was placed on record to prove the accident and the
negligence on the part of the indictee is a collusive one or that the same
cannot be accepted for other cogent reasons, it is obligatory on the part
of the Tribunal to record a finding to that effect and call upon the
claimant to adduce independent evidence of the occurrence and the
negligence attributed against the indictee, before dismissing the claim
petition for want of evidence, with a view to give effect to the statutory
provisions in its true spirit and to avoid unnecessary delay in the
disbursal of compensation in genuine cases.
11. The fact that the appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 04.05.2010 is not seriously disputed. The learned
counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant has not examined
any independent witness to prove the negligence alleged against the 2 nd
respondent and that apart from the interested testimony of PW1, there
is no other evidence to prove the occurrence and negligence attributed
against the 2nd respondent.
12. Considering the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal
ought to have given an opportunity to the parties to examine
2025:KER:4822
independent witnesses to prove the occurrence and the negligence
attributed against the 2nd respondent and therefore, the matter has to be
remanded to the Tribunal.
13. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the case is
remanded for fresh disposal after affording the parties an opportunity to
adduce further evidence to prove the occurrence and negligence
attributed against the 2nd respondent. The parties are directed to appear
before the Tribunal on 22.02.2025.
This appeal is allowed as above.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
