Baby Paul v. K.P. Varghese & Ors. (MACA No. 1168 of 2008)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/24TH BHADRA, 1939** **MACA.No. 1168 of 2008** ## **--------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD IN OP(MV).35/2002 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 16-02-2008** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------** **BABY PAUL, S/O PAILY, RESIDING AT PANATTU HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR KARA ASSAMANNOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR.** **BY ADVS.SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------** **1. K.P.VARGHESE, S/O PAILY, PANATTU HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.** **2. VARGHESE, S/O THOMAS, GOWDERVILLA ESTATE LAYAM, MUNNAR.** **3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,** **UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PERUMBAVOOR.** **R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **ami/** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 -----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 15[th] day of September, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J** . This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, dated 16.2.2008 in O.P.(MV) No.35/2002, a claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident, which alleged to have occurred on 23.2.2000, while he was travelling as a passenger in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-7/A-5200, owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 herein respectively and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. 2. Going by the averments in the claim petition, due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 2[nd] respondent driver, it dashed against the parapet of a culvert on the side of MaduraiPerumbavoor road and overturned. As a result of the accident, the appellant/claimant was thrown out of the jeep and he sustained serious injuries. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,07,000/- under different heads, which was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- for the purpose of payment of court fee, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal on 3.1.2002. M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-2-: 3. The 1[st] respondent owner, who is none other than the brother of the appellant/claimant, remained _ex parte_ . The 2[nd] respondent driver who was originally set _ex parte_ on 16.5.2002 filed I.A.No.4419/2006 under Order IX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order to set aside the _ex parte_ order. The said application was allowed on 13.10.2006 and accordingly, the written statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent driver along with the said interlocutory application was accepted on file, wherein he has admitted that at the time of accident he was driving the jeep in question. According to the 2[nd] respondent driver, he was driving the jeep with due care and caution and adhering to all traffic rules. When the jeep reached the place of accident, the brake system failed and it overturned in spite of all his attempts to avoid the accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement on 3.11.2006, denying the factum of accident and also the injuries alleged to have sustained by the appellant/claimant. The 3[rd] respondent insurer raised a specific contention that, at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant himself was driving the jeep in question. According to the insurer, the appellant/claimant in collusion with the 1[st] respondent owner and also the 2[nd] respondent driver M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-3-: fabricated a false story and filed the claim petition as a test case in order to get compensation from the insurer. In the criminal case registered by the Police, the appellant himself is arrayed as the accused. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The insurer has also contended that the compensation claimed under different heads is on a higher side. 5. On the side of the claimant, Exts.A1 to A12 series were marked. The appellant/claimant was examined as PW1 and PWs.2 and 3 were also examined on his side. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 6. After considering the materials and evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant himself was driving the jeep in question. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant/claimant, he is not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dismissed the claim petition. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-4-: appellant/claimant and also the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 9. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant holding that, since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the appellant/claimant, he is not entitled to get any compensation from the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 10. Going by the averments in the claim petition, the accident occurred on 23.2.2000 and at the time of accident, the appellant was travelling as a passenger in the jeep bearing registration No.KL-7/A5200 driven by the 2[nd] respondent driver. When the jeep reached the place of accident, due to excessive speed the 2[nd] respondent driver lost control over the jeep and it dashed against the parapet of a culvert on the side of the road and overturned. The appellant was thrown out of the jeep and he sustained serious injuries. While he was undergoing treatment at M.B.M.M. Hospital, Kothamangalam, the matter was intimated to the police by the hospital authorities and a crime was registered by Rajakkad Police as Crime No.29/2000 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 339 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Ext.A1 is the FIR and Ext.A2 is the FIS dated 24.2.2000 in Crime M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-5-: No.29/2000. 11. During the course of the investigation in Crime No.29/2000, police recorded the statement of the appellant and other passengers in the jeep. According to the appellant, police demanded some illegal gratification. As he was not prepared for that, he was threatened with dare consequences, and thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the crime as the driver of the jeep at the time of accident, and filed Ext.A3 final report dated 19.6.2000 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. Aggrieved by the said act, the appellant filed a complaint before the superior officers and thereafter approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly in a protest complaint, which was numbered as C.M.P.No.1726/2001, which was pending consideration at the time of filing the claim petition. 12. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the accident, the appellant himself was examined as PW1 and one Kurian P. Issac, the alleged co-passenger, was examined as PW2. As per Ext.A2 FIS, at the time of accident the 2[nd] respondent was driving the jeep and the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving. In the said accident, the appellant sustained the injuries as borne out from medical records. In Ext.A1 FIR, the date and time of accident is recorded as 23.2.2000 at 8.40 am. The accident was reported to the M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-6-: police on 24.2.2000 at 9.00 am and the police recorded Ext.A2 FIS while the appellant was undergoing inpatient treatment at M.B.M.M. Hospital, Kothamangalam. 13. As per Ext.A2 FIS, at the time of accident, the appellant was travelling in the jeep in question along PW2 Kurian and the 2[nd] respondent as its driver. In the accident, all of them were thrown out of the jeep and they sustained injuries. However, in the investigation conducted by the police it was found that the appellant himself was driving the jeep in question at the time of accident. Accordingly, the police filed Ext.A3 charge sheet dated 19.6.2000, wherein the appellant was arrayed as the accused. As per Ext.A3 charge sheet, PW2 Kurian and the 2[nd] respondent alone have witnessed the accident. 14. Ext.A4 is the scene mahazar prepared by the police on 25.2.2000, wherein the damages caused to the jeep have also been noted. Those damages were on the right side of the jeep, i.e., on the right side of the front bumper, running board and back bumper, etc. Ext.A4 scene mahazar would also show that there are no residential buildings in the locality. Ext.A5 is the AMVI's report, wherein the damages caused to the jeep have been noted. As per Ext.A4, there were scratches on the driver's door, damage to front and rear bumpers, etc. It is pertinent to note that, as per Ext.A5 AMVI report, on M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-7-: inspection it was found that the foot brake system of the jeep is intact. 15. Ext.A6 is the wound certificate issued by the hospital authorities, wherein the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant are noted. The injuries sustained by the appellant, as borne out from the said document, are contusion on the right shoulder and upper arm, abrasion over right arm, anterior dislocation of right shoulder and comminuted fracture lower 1/3[rd] right humerus. 16. Ext.A8 is the certified copy of the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly, dated 24.4.2003 in S.T.No.2268/2001. It was a case registered based on Ext.A10 protest complaint dated 9.3.2001 made by the appellant, which was numbered as C.M.P.No.1726/2001, wherein it was alleged that the accident occurred while the 2[nd] respondent was driving the jeep. Ext.A8 judgment would show that, based on the protest complaint made by the appellant, proceedings were initiated against the 2[nd] respondent driver, who entered appearance on receipt of summons and pleaded guilty. Accordingly, he was sentenced to pay a total fine of Rs.2,000/for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. Out of the said fine amount, Rs.500/- was ordered to be given to the appellant, who is the injured. 17. Ext.A9 is the certified copy of the judgment of the very M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-8-: same court dated 11.4.2003 in C.C.No.410/2000, arising out of Crime No.29/2000, wherein the police filed Ext.A3 final report. As borne out from Ext.A9 judgment, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly acquitted the appellant since prosecution witness turned hostile. Relying on Exts.A8 and A9, the appellant would contend that, at the time of accident the 2[nd] respondent was riding the jeep in question and that, the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. As such, the Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the claim petition. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.3879/2009, an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, producing therewith a copy of the complaint dated 11.4.2000 alleged to have been filed before the Superintendent of Police, Idukki as an additional document. The said document, which is not even marked in the affidavit accompanying to that application, cannot be a accepted on record as additional document, without satisfying the mandatory requirements under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code. 18. As we have already noticed that, though the specific case of the appellant was that the accident occurred on account of brake failure, the finding in Ext.A5 AMVI's report, which is a document relied on by the appellant himself, is to the effect that in the inspection the M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-9-: foot brake system of the jeep was found intact. Therefore, the case projected by the appellant in Ext.A10 protest complaint that the accident had occurred due to brake failure can only be rejected. The appellant has not produced even a scrap of paper to show that the 2[nd] respondent and PW2 Kurian sustained bodily injuries, as alleged in Ext.A10 protest complaint and also in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the case of the appellant that, in the accident the said Kurian and the 2[nd] respondent were thrown out of the jeep and they sustained injuries can only be rejected. 19. Merely for the reason that in S.T.No.2268/2001 the 2[nd] respondent driver pleaded guilty and accordingly, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC vide Ext.A8 judgment of the Magistrate Court dated 24.4.2003, the appellant cannot insist that the Tribunal should accept the said finding of the Magistrate Court and hold that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 2[nd] respondent driver. Similarly, the acquittal of the appellant vide Ext.A9 judgment of the very same Magistrate Court dated 11.4.2003 in C.C.No.410/2000 arising out of Crime No.29/2000, since prosecution witness turned hostile, is also not sufficient ground for the Tribunal to hold that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-10-: by the 2[nd] respondent driver. 20. In **Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC** **422]** the Apex Court, in the context of Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 held that clubbing of the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, was not permissible and if the prosecution versions in the two cases were materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, such cases may be ordered to be tried together, but not consolidated. In other words, the evidence is to be recorded separately in both the cases and they should be disposed of simultaneously so that the procedure does not infringe the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, read with Section 300 of CrPC. 21. The law laid down in **Harjinder Singh's case (supra)** has been reiterated in **Pal @ Palla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 123]** wherein the Apex Court held that two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated but should be tried together with the evidence in the two cases being recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of simultaneously. 22. In the instant case, though the appellant was represented M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-11-: before the Magistrate Court in S.T.No.2268/2001 and C.C.No.410/2000 by the very same lawyer, both cases were not tried together, with the evidence in the two cases being recorded separately, and the cases were also not disposed of simultaneously. As discernible from Exts.A8 and A9 judgments, the Magistrate Court proceeded with the matter as if the pendency of S.T.No.2268/2001 was never brought to its notice till the disposal of C.C.No.410/2000. 23. It is now well settled that, the judgment rendered by a criminal court is admissible in evidence in a claim petition filed before the Tribunal only for the limited purpose of showing that a criminal case was initiated against some person and the result of such criminal case. The findings of the criminal court in that judgment are not binding on the Tribunal and therefore, de hors such findings the Tribunal has to decide the case on its own footings and the decision so taken by the Tribunal is not dependent upon the result or outcome of the criminal case. While the finding of a civil court is binding on the criminal court, the finding of a criminal court could not and should not influence the decision of a civil court or Tribunal. Therefore, while dealing with a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunal is supposed to adjudge the case based on the evidence tendered before it and not on the basis of testimonies given before the M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-12-: criminal court. Therefore, the mere fact that the appellant was acquitted in C.C.No.410/2000 since prosecution witness turned hostile or that, the 2[nd] respondent was convicted in S.T.No.2268/2001 as he pleaded guilty, is not at all sufficient to hold that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 2[nd] respondent driver. 24. Since the records in O.P.(MV)No.35/2002 received from the Tribunal was incomplete, this Court by order dated 25.8.2017 called for I.A.No.4419/2006 filed by the 2[nd] respondent driver before the Tribunal seeking an order to set aside the order by which he was set _ex parte_ in the claim petition. Accordingly, the said interlocutory application and some other records are now received by this Court. Going by the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.4419/2006, the 2[nd] respondent did not receive summons from the Tribunal in his address “Gowdervilla Estate Layam, Munnar” as he was at Tamil Nadu in connection with his job and as such, he could not contact his lawyer. 25. In this appeal, the notice issued to the 2[nd] respondent driver returned with an endorsement “not known”. I.A.No.2364/2016 filed under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order for paper publication was dismissed by the order dated 9.8.2016 without prejudice to the right of the appellant to file a fresh application M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-13-: seeking appropriate reliefs. Appellant filed I.A.No.3356/2016 for that purpose, which was dismissed as “not pressed” on 30.9.2016. Thereafter, the appellant filed I.A.No.3627/2016 in this appeal stating that the 2[nd] respondent driver has shifted his residence to “Ambiyil House, Aimurikara P.O., Kavumpuram, Perumbavoor” and therefore, fresh notice may be issued to the said respondent in his new residential address. Accordingly, by the order dated 18.10.2016, this Court permitted the petitioner to take out notice to the 2[nd] respondent in the address shown in I.A.No.3627/2016. Despite service of notice none appeared for the 2[nd] respondent. We also notice that, the signatures of the 2[nd] respondent in I.A.No.4419/2006 and also the written statement filed before the Tribunal have absolutely no similarity with the signature seen in the A/D card regarding service of notice on the said respondent. 26. In the impugned award, the Tribunal after considering the evidence and materials on record, the nature of injures sustained by the appellant and also the damages caused to the jeep in question arrived at a conclusion that at the time of accident the appellant himself was driving the jeep, which is owned by the 1[st] respondent who is none other than his own brother and that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the appellant. Subsequently, as an after thought, the appellant filed protest complaint in order to get M.A.C.A.No.1168 of 2008 :-14-: compensation from the 3[rd] respondent insurer. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal has also rejected the case of the appellant that, the 2[nd] respondent driver and also PW2 Kurian sustained injuries in the accident and that the police falsely implicated him in the crime registered in connection with the said motor accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to get any compensation from the 3[rd] respondent insurer. The said finding of the Tribunal is not contrary to law and facts of the case, which warrants no interference of this Court in this appeal. 27. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE** Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge