Kerala High Court
Safiya Muhamed vs Abdul Rehiman T.K on 25 July, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.113 of 2020
1
2025:KER:54430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 113 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.08.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.1362 OF
2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THRISSUR.
APPELLANT/PEITIONER:
SAFIYA MUHAMED,
AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMED, MUSAFI MANZIL, PRIYADARSINI NAGAR,
OLLUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 655.
BY ADV SRI.C.D.DILEEP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ABDUL REHIMAN T.K.,
THONIKADAVATH HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM-673 571.
2 MOIDEENKUTTY,
S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, MUSLIARAKATH HOUSE,
PALLIKKAL BAZAR, KUTTIPURAM, NADUVATTAM VILLAGE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 571.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,
KH BUILDING, THAZHEPALAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
SRI.D.FEROZE
SHRI.N.S.NAJEEB
SRI.K.A.ABIDALI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.113 of 2020
2
2025:KER:54430
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.113 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.1362/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 03/08/2019.
The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. In this
appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described
in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 03/04/2005 at
about 05:15 p.m., while she was travelling in car bearing registration
No.KL-9-D-8966 and when she reached the place by name
Pannithadam near Royal Dental College, car bearing registration
No.KL-10-J-4444 driven by the second respondent in a rash and
negligent manner rammed the side of the car in which she was
2025:KER:54430
travelling as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries. An
amount of ₹2,29,000/- was claimed as compensation under various
heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second
respondent/driver. The age, income, hospitalization etc. were disputed.
It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner.
Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. No oral
evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found that there
was no negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the
offending vehicle and dismissed the original petition. Aggrieved by the
Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.
2025:KER:54430
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal
calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Here as noticed earlier, the case of the claim
petitioner is that on 03/04/2005 at 05:15 p.m. she was travelling in car
bearing registration No.KL-9-D-8966 and when she reached the place
by name Pannithadam near Royal Dental College, car bearing
registration No.KL-10-J-4444 driven in a rash and negligent manner by
the second respondent rammed the side of the car in which she was
travelling due to which she sustained grievous injuries. According to
her, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the second respondent, the driver of the car bearing registration
No.KL-10-J-4444. Ext.A1 FIR ; Ext.B1 scene mahazar and Ext.B2
final report /charge sheet show that son of the claim petitioner who was
driving the car in which she was travelling was rash and negligent in
driving which resulted in the accident.
10. A Division Bench of this Court in New India
2025:KER:54430
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3) KHC 595
held that as a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of
the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence
for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Act. A system
cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust of the police. Prima
facie, charge sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can
be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. In case any
of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on
such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced by any
party in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunal 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. In all other cases, such
charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a
claim under Section 166 of the Act. The Bench further held that on
production of such charge sheet the shifting of burden must take place.
It was further held that this would not mean that collusive charge
sheets need to be accepted. If on the facts of a given case the Tribunal
2025:KER:54430
feels that the police charge sheet does not satisfy the judicial
conscience, the Tribunal can record that the charge sheet cannot be
accepted and can call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral
evidence of the accident and the alleged negligence. In such a case, the
issue of negligence must be decided on the other evidence, ignoring the
charge sheet.
11. The claim petitioner examined herself as PW1. In the
proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination she has stated that the
second respondent/driver of the car bearing registration No.KL-10-J-
4444 was responsible for the accident due to his speedy, rash and
negligent driving. There is not a whisper regarding Ext.A1 FIR or
Ext.B2 final report as per which the accused is her son. Based on
Ext.B2 final report, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kunnamkulam, took the case on file as C.C.No.595/2005. A copy of
the judgment dated 25/08/2008 was obtained from the Court concerned
and perused. It is seen that the son of the claim petitioner, the driver of
the car in which she was travelling, has been acquitted under Section
255(1) Cr.P.C. On going through the judgment it can be seen that
2025:KER:54430
PWs.1 to 3 who are none other than the sister of the claim petitioner ;
the claim petitioner and her another son turned hostile and deposed that
the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car
bearing registration No. KL-10-J-4444. In the light of their testimony,
the accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. It is true that
when a competent Court has acquitted the accused, then the final report
based on which the case was taken on file, cannot be relied on to
prove negligence. In such circumstances, the claim petitioner will have
to adduce other evidence to prove negligence. The claim petitioner
relies on Exts.A5, A6 and A9. Now the question is whether based on
the same, negligence on the part of the second respondent can be found
as claimed by the claim petitioner.
12. It is seen that one of the sons of the claim petitioner,
namely the accused in Ext.B2 final report (C.C.No.595/2005) filed
Ext.A5 private complaint dated 08/02/2006 under Section 190 Cr.P.C.
alleging that while his mother, the claim petitioner, was in a serious
condition, her signature was obtained in blank papers and a false case
registered against him who was driving the vehicle. Ext.A5 complaint
2025:KER:54430
does not specify the person(s) who is/are alleged to have obtained the
signature of the claim petitioner in blank papers. The private
complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kunnamkulam alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the second respondent herein. The
learned Magistrate after taking cognizance, on 22/04/2006 recorded
Ext.A6 sworn statement of the claim petitioner herein and thereafter
took the case on file as C.C.No.1418 of 2006. As per order dated
22/07/2008, the second respondent herein, who was arrayed as the
accused in the said case, is seen to have appeared before the court
concerned and pleaded guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and paid the fine imposed. When
Ext.A5 complaint was given on 08/02/2006, Ext.A1 FIR had already
been registered on 04/04/2005 pursuant to the accident which took
place on 03/04/2005. The date on which Ext.B2 final report was
submitted before the Court concerned is not discernible from the copy
produced. It is apparent that Ext.A5 complaint was filed after the
registration of Ext.A1 FIR and hence the reason why, there was no
2025:KER:54430
request for sending the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the
police for investigation and report, as is normally done.
C.C.No.595/2005 based on Ext.B2 final report ended in acquittal of the
son of the claim petitioner by judgment dated 25/08/2008. In the
meantime, Ext.A5 private complaint was initiated and by Ext.A9 order
dated 22/07/2008, the second respondent herein pleaded guilty. The
incident took place on 03/04/2005. However, the claim petition is seen
filed only in the year 2012 only, that is, after an inordinate delay of 7
years. It is also pertinent to note that in column 26 of the claim petition
to the question whether the application has been made within 6 months
of the occurrence of the accident, is answered in the affirmative and it
is stated that it was filed within time, which statement is apparently
false. The proceedings which culminated in Ext.A9 order appears to be
a collusive one. Therefore, this Court is unable to find negligence on
the part of the second respondent/driver and hence in an application
under Section 166 of the Act when negligence is not proved, the claim
petitioner cannot succeed in her claim.
In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
2025:KER:54430
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
