[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr.Shaila.S vs Rajesh on 26 February, 2026
2026:KER:16863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA,
1947
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.04.2014 IN OPMV NO.959
OF 2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.SHAILA.S
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. DR.SHARAFUDEEN, TC 11/810, KNRA B-11,
SITHARA GARDENS, ULLOOR, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RAJESH
S/O. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, VAZHAVILAKATHU VEEDU,
MANNOORKARA, KOTTOOR, KOTTOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 574.
2 MS. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, KOTTARATHIL BUILDING
ANNEXE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2026:KER:16863
2
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
BY ADV SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON 26.02.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16863
3
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV)
No.959 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, against the dismissal of the
claim petition by the tribunal. The respondents herein were
the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 11.05.2003,
while the claimant was travelling in a Maruti car bearing
Reg.No.KL-01-H-7837 which was driven by her husband, an
auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.01-Q-9758 driven by the 1st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the right side
of the body of the car and thus the she sustained serious
injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a
total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the
offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The
second respondent/insurer filed a written statement
contending that the petition is bad for non-joinder of
2026:KER:16863
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
necessary parties since the owner, driver and insurer of the
car were not made a party. It is also contended that the
accident occurred only due to the negligence of the car
driver. Before the tribunal, Pws1 and 2 were examined and
Exts.A1 to A15, Exts.B1 and B2 documents were marked. The
tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on
record, dismissed the claim petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the negligence was on the part of the driver of
the auto-rickshaw in causing the accident and that there was
no negligence on the part of the driver of the car, who was
her husband, in which she was travelling as a passenger.
Though a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the car,
the evidence of PW2, an occurrence witness, clearly stated
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver
of the auto-rickshaw. The learned counsel for the appellant
2026:KER:16863
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
further submitted that the tribunal was not justified in
rejecting the application solely on the ground that the driver
of the car had pleaded guilty. The learned counsel also relied
on the judgment of this Court in Menon P.S. v. Registrar
General, High Court of Kerala [2026 KHC Online 128]
wherein it was held that findings in criminal proceedings,
even those based on a plea of guilt, are not conclusive or
binding on the Claims Tribunal. It was submitted by the
learned counsel that the evidence of PW2 also supported the
case of the claimant/appellant that the accident occurred due
to the negligence of the driver of the auto-rickshaw and that
the tribunal ought to have considered the better evidence
adduced by the appellant in this case.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for
the respondent/insurance company, on the other hand,
submitted that PW2 is not a charge-sheet witness. It was
further submitted that the driver of the car had not
challenged the charge sheet drawn against him, nor had he
2026:KER:16863
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
examined the investigating officer to prove that the
negligence was on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw.
According to the learned standing counsel for the insurance
company, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim put
forward by the claimant for want of evidence.
7. I have considered the rival contentions
raised by both sides.
8. On a perusal of the award as well as the
documents produced, it is seen that the charge sheet was
drawn against the driver of the car, who is the husband of the
claimant. The appellant is the owner of the car. In the claim
petition as well as in the appeal, it is the specific case of the
appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the car. Since the claimant was a passenger in the
car and the contention is that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the driver of the auto-rickshaw, it cannot be
treated as a case of composite negligence, as there is no
allegation of negligence on the part of the driver of the car.
2026:KER:16863
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
Admittedly, no charge sheet was drawn against the driver of
the auto-rickshaw. On a perusal of the deposition of PW2, it is
seen that he testified that he had no connection with the
claimant or her husband. However, he remembered the
number of the car and the accident that occurred in the year
2003 when he was examined before the tribunal in 2008, that
too after five years. Though he stated that he had witnessed
the accident and attributed it to the negligence of the auto-
rickshaw driver, his testimony appears untrustworthy and this
court does not accept it as better evidence to the charge
sheet. According to them, the impact was on the right side of
the car. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In
Menon P.S. (supra), the Claims Tribunal had rejected the
petitioner's application 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. In the
2026:KER:16863
MACA NO. 713 OF 2016
present case, the claimant was given an opportunity to
adduce evidence, and PW2 was examined in support of their
contentions. Hence, the said decision does not apply to the
facts of the present case.
9. The tribunal, in the absence of better
evidence on the question of negligence, found that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
car. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the
tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
STB
