Menon P.S vs The Registrar General
2026 Latest Caselaw 1434 Ker

Kerala High Court

Menon P.S vs The Registrar General on 11 February, 2026

                                                     2026:KER:12467

OP(MAC)No.18/2024                 1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947

                       OP (MAC) NO. 18 OF 2024

         OP(MV) NO.1696 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             MENON P.S,
             AGED 69 YEARS,S/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT NO T5,
             3RD FLOOR, NARAYANA APARTMENT, MOGALIVAGAM MAIN ROAD,
             PORUR, CHENNAI, PIN - 600116


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.NIKHIL
             SMT.SAJNA JALEEL

RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031

     2       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
             PARK HOUSE ROUND, NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

     3       FIJO P.J,
             AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.JOY P.L, PORATHUR HOUSE, PARAPPUR
             P.O, CHALAKKAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680552


             BY ADV SMT.VINITHA B.FOR R1
             SRI.P.K. MANOJKUMAR, SC FOR R2


     THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2026,
THE COURT ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                                 2026:KER:12467

OP(MAC)No.18/2024                            2




                                                                                         "C.R'


                           MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
                    ......................................................
                            O.P (MAC) No.18 of 2024
                .............................................................
                 Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026


                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV)

No.1696/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.

The 1st respondent herein is the claimant in the original petition, and

respondents 2 and 3 herein are respondents 3 and 1, respectively, in the

said original petition. The original petition was instituted by the 1 st

respondent claiming compensation for the damage caused to the High

Court vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07-BG-3165 (Innova), which was

involved in a road traffic accident. In this OP(MAC), the petitioner

challenges Exts. P7 and P8 orders of the Tribunal, by which Exts. P3 and P4

interlocutory applications were dismissed.

2. The accident is alleged to have occurred on 09.02.2013 at about 2026:KER:12467

6.00 a.m. at Chembukkavu Junction, near KSFE Office, Ramanilayam,

Thrissur. According to the claimant, while the Innova car, used as a

Judges' tour vehicle and proceeding from Ernakulam to Kannur, reached

the said spot, a Toyota Corolla bearing registration No. TN-10-V-1786,

owned by the petitioner and driven by the 3rd respondent, emerged from

a side road at high speed and collided with the front portion of the

Innova, causing damage to the bumper, bonnet, radiator, condenser,

headlight assembly grill, name board, flag post and engine hood. The case

of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the 3rd respondent was

travelling from Cheroor towards Ernakulam and, while crossing the road,

the High Court vehicle, which was being driven rashly and at excessive

speed from Ernakulam towards Kannur, collided with the rear portion of

the petitioner's vehicle. It is further asserted that the police authorities

had informed the respondents that no case was registered against the 3rd

respondent.

3. While the claim petition was pending, the petitioner filed

Ext.P3 I.A. No.1/2023 seeking to summon the Scientific Assistant who

conducted the sample paint comparison test, along with the report 2026:KER:12467

prepared in connection with the criminal proceedings, and Ext. P4 I.A.

No.2/2023 seeking acceptance of the witness list, including the said expert

and the 3rd respondent. The claimant opposed the said applications by

filing Exts. P5 and P6 objections, contending that there was no bonafides

in the request and that the forensic report was unnecessary for

adjudication of the claim.

4. The Tribunal, by Exts. P7 and P8 orders dated 07.09.2023,

dismissed the applications on the sole ground that the 3 rd respondent

driver had been convicted by the criminal court on the basis of a plea of

guilt. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that

findings in criminal proceedings cannot be treated as determinative of

negligence in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended

that the plea of guilt by the driver does not preclude the petitioner from

disputing negligence before the Tribunal and adducing evidence to

disprove the police version, particularly when the petitioner himself had

no opportunity to contest the criminal charge. By rejecting the

applications, the Tribunal effectively foreclosed the petitioner's right to

adduce relevant evidence, thereby resulting in a denial of a fair 2026:KER:12467

opportunity and causing serious prejudice.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on New

India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others [2011 (3) KHC 595]

and National Insurance Co. Ltd., North Paravur v. Sajeev and Others [2018

(1) KHC 795] to contend that a charge sheet or the outcome of criminal

proceedings is not conclusive on the issue of negligence in a motor

accident claim, and that the Claims Tribunal is duty-bound to

independently assess negligence on the basis of the entire evidence,

applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, without

mechanically fastening liability.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the

Registrar General, High Court of Kerala, it is contended that the accident

occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Toyota

Corolla bearing registration No. TN-10-V-1786, owned by the petitioner.

According to the 1st respondent, the Innova car, which was being used as a

Judges' tour vehicle, was proceeding in its correct lane, and on noticing

the offending vehicle, its driver brought the car to a halt. However, the

Toyota Corolla, which was being driven at an excessive speed, collided 2026:KER:12467

with the front portion of the Innova, resulting in the damage complained

of. It is further stated that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the 1 st

respondent, criminal proceedings were initiated against the driver of the

Toyota Corolla, the 3rd respondent herein, who pleaded guilty and was

convicted and fined by the competent criminal court on 28.10.2013. The

said criminal court records were produced before the Tribunal and relied

upon, and the Tribunal found that no forensic report or scientific material

was ever filed or produced by the petitioner. On that basis, the Tribunal

rejected the applications, holding that, in view of the conviction on a plea

of guilt, further summoning of witnesses or documents was unnecessary.

7. It is contended that the Tribunal was justified in relying upon

the criminal court records and the admitted plea of guilt, which are

relevant facts under Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, for the purpose

of establishing primary negligence. Reliance is placed on K.G.

Premshankar v. Inspector of Police [(2002) 8 SCC 87] to contend that

findings in criminal proceedings, particularly when founded on

admission, can be relied upon in civil liability proceedings. It is further

submitted that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to place 2026:KER:12467

materials on record but failed to do so, and therefore cannot subsequently

allege a violation of principles of natural justice. In this context, reliance

is placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal [(2007) 5 SCC

428], wherein it was held that a party who fails to avail the opportunity

provided cannot later complain of procedural unfairness.

8. It is further contended that the procedure adopted by the

Tribunal was strictly in accordance with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles

Act and Rule 240 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which permit

summary adjudication based on documentary evidence where the facts

are not seriously in dispute. The contention of the petitioner that

independent forensic evidence was required is stated to be untenable,

particularly in the absence of any such material. Reliance is placed on

Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 9 SCC 284] to submit that where

negligence is clearly borne out from primary materials such as charge

sheets, admissions and court orders, further oral or scientific evidence is

not mandatory. It is therefore submitted that the original petition is

devoid of merit both on facts and in law, that the Tribunal acted well

within its jurisdiction, and that there is no violation of any statutory 2026:KER:12467

provision warranting interference by this Court.

9. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter

affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the contentions in the

counter affidavit regarding the filing of IAs seeking to summon certain

forensic documents and the Tribunal found no such forensic report was

ever filed or produced are imaginary and without pursuing the prayers in

the IAs. Further, it is stated that the IAs were filed without any delay, and

therefore, the contention in the counter on giving ample opportunity to

place evidence on record is denied.

10. Heard Sri. R. Nikhil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. B

Vinitha, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. P.K Manojkumar,

learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

11. Having perused the materials on record, the short question

that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in

rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking to adduce independent

evidence on the issue of negligence solely on the ground that the driver of

the petitioner's vehicle had pleaded guilty and was convicted in the

connected criminal proceedings.

2026:KER:12467

12. It is trite that proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are civil in nature

and that the issue of negligence has to be adjudicated on the basis of

preponderance of probabilities, independent of the outcome of criminal

proceedings. As held in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and

Another [2023 13 SCC 510], the opinion expressed in the final report or the

result of the criminal case does not bind the Claims Tribunal, and the

parties are entitled to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to establish

negligence. The Apex Court further observed that criminal proceedings

and claim proceedings operate in distinct fields and that even a conviction

in the criminal case cannot dispense with the obligation of the Tribunal to

independently assess negligence on the evidence adduced before it.

Reliance was placed on N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Anmal [(1980) 3

SCC 457], Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation [(2009) 13

SCC 530] and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [(2013) 10 SCC 646]

to reiterate that strict proof applicable to criminal trials cannot be

imported into claim proceedings.

13. More particularly, in cases where the conviction is founded 2026:KER:12467

on a plea of guilt, the courts have consistently cautioned against treating

such a plea as conclusive proof of negligence in proceedings under the

Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court of Karnataka in Bajaj Allianz General

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B.C. Kumar and Another [2009 SCC OnLine Kar 285]

have held that the mere circumstance of the driver having pleaded guilty

before the criminal court may, at best, be treated as a piece of evidence

and cannot be made the sole basis to fasten liability in a claim petition. It

was emphasised that the Claims Tribunal is duty-bound to independently

assess the evidence placed before it and that mechanical reliance on a plea

of guilt would be legally impermissible. The same principle was reiterated

in Ganesh Achar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2023 Supreme (Kar)

1006], wherein the Karnataka High Court held that acceptance of guilt by

the driver or the filing of a charge sheet cannot, by itself, justify a finding

on negligence and that the claimant is required to establish the

involvement of the vehicle and negligence by adducing independent

evidence.

14. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., North Paravur v. Sajeev and

Others [2018 (1) KHC 795], the above position was reiterated, holding that, 2026:KER:12467

going by the settled principles of law, a judgment of a criminal court is

not binding on the Tribunal, though it may be a relevant circumstance. It

was further held that a judgment based on a plea of guilt, by itself, cannot

form the basis for a finding of negligence in a claim petition, for the

reason that while the plea of guilt jeopardises only the accused in criminal

proceedings, a finding on negligence in claim proceedings would fasten

vicarious civil liability on the owner and, in the absence of any

permissible defence, compel the insurer to indemnify such liability. The

Division Bench emphasised that it is both open to and desirable for the

Tribunal to arrive at an independent finding on negligence based on the

evidence adduced before it while adjudicating a claim petition.

15. In the present case, the petitioner sought permission to

adduce independent evidence on the issue of negligence, which was

declined by the Tribunal solely on the premise that the driver had pleaded

guilty in the criminal proceedings. Such an approach runs contrary to the

settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

High Courts. The petitioner, who was not an accused in the criminal case,

cannot be non-suited in the claim proceedings without being afforded a 2026:KER:12467

fair opportunity to contest negligence by leading evidence. The Tribunal

was therefore not justified in rejecting the applications at the threshold

without examining their relevance or necessity.

16. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are

unsustainable in law and are set aside, reserving liberty to the Tribunal to

consider the petitioner's applications in accordance with law and to

adjudicate the issue of negligence independently based on the evidence

adduced by the parties.

The Original Petition is allowed.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

okb/ 2026:KER:12467

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) NO. 18 OF 2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NUMBERED AS O.P(MV) NO: 1696/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P(MV) NO: 1696/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS IA NO :1/2023 IN O.P(MV) NO: 1696/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS IA NO:2/2023 IN O.P(MV) NO: 1696/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN TO I.A NO: 1/2023 IN O.P(MV) NO:1696 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN TO I.A NO:2/2023 IN O.P(MV) NO:1696 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2023 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR IN I.A NO:1/2023 IN O.P(MV) NO:1696 OF 2016 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2023 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR IN I.A NO:2/2023 IN O.P(MV) NO:1696 OF 2016