Christian Raj v. Managing Director, Kerala State Transport Corporation and Velumani

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 7 [ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2296 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV NO.924 OF 2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` CHRISTIAN RAJ AGED 36 YEARS S/O. THOMAS NADAR, SONU BHAVAN, GANDHI SMARAKAM, MANNAYAM, MOONNAANAKUZHI P.O., VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 VELUMANI S/O. MARY, KRUMANNAM PALLAM VEEDU, THEKKE DESOM, NALLAPPALLY, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** ``` This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV)No.924 of 2008, aggrieved by the award of the tribunal by which his claim was rejected. ``` ``` 2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 29/5/2008 at 7.40 am while he was riding a motorcycle carrying his wife on its pillion seat. According to him, KL-15/3086 (TS-32) KSRTC bus driven by the 2 nd respondent ``` ``` in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motorcycle, whereby himself and his wife were thrown away and both of them sustained injuries. He was admitted and treated at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and also at Ananthapuri Hospitals and Research Institute. He was a 30 year old driver earning ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 3 ``` monthly income of Rs.5,000/- as on the date of accident. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10 Lakh. But learned Tribunal dismissed his claim petition finding that there was no evidence on record to show that, the claimant sustained injuries in an accident involving KL-15/3086 (TS-32) KSRTC bus. Hence this appeal. ``` `3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant` ``` and learned counsel for the respondents. ``` `4. Learned counsel for the appellant would` ``` submit that there was ample evidence to show that the appellant suffered injuries in the ``` ``` accident, in which KL-15/3086 (TS-32) KSRTC bus driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motorcycle. ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 4 ``` Ext.A7 charge sheet clearly shows that the KSRTC bus was driven by the 2 nd respondent in a ``` ``` rash and negligent manner, and so he was charged under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. ``` ``` Exts A1 to A5 coupled with his medical records such as Ext.A6 and A8 to A12 were sufficient to show that the appellant suffered serious injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 2 nd respondent. ``` ``` 5. According to the appellant it seems that learned Tribunal was carried away by Ext.A4 AMVI report which says that no damages were noted on that vehicle to find that the KSRTC bus was not involved in the accident. Ext.A5 AMVI report of the motorcycle ridden by the ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 5 ``` appellant was showing extensive damages. So learned Tribunal jumped into a conclusion that if the transport bus was involved in that accident, there might have been damages on its ``` ``` body also. But as we know the damages may ``` ``` depend on the portion of the vehicle where the actual impact took place. If the hit was on the ``` ``` tyre portion, it is not possible to have any ``` ``` damages on the body. When a motorcycle was thrown away after hitting by a bus the ``` ``` motorcycle may suffer extensive damages, but the bus may have little impact. ``` ## `6. The police after thorough investigation,` ``` filed Ext.A7 charge sheet against the 2 nd respondent, as the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus. ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 ``` Ext.A6 wound certificate prepared on the date of accident itself, will show the history of injury as collision between motorcycle and bus. So learned Tribunal went wrong in finding that ``` ``` the transport bus was not involved in the accident just because of the fact that no damages were found on the body of the bus. No evidence was adduced by the respondents to rebut Ext.A7 charge sheet so as to discard the same. ``` `7. In` _**`New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs.`**_ ``` Pazhaniammal (2011 (3) KLT 648)] , a Division Bench of this Court held that, ‘ as a general rule it can be accepted that production of charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 7 ``` S.166. If any of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If Court feels that charge sheet is collusive, Tribunal can record that, charge sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such case, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence, ignoring charge sheet ’. ``` ``` 8. In the case on hand the charge sheet clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 2nd respondent. No evidence whatsoever is there to rebut that charge. Moreover learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 8 ``` wife of the appellant also had suffered injury in the very same accident and she had preferred OP(MV)968/2008 before the very same tribunal. That case was amicably settled between the wife ``` ``` of the appellant and the KSRTC, and a settlement award was passed. For that reason also now the respondent cannot be allowed to take up a contention that the said KSRTC bus was not involved in the accident. So this court ``` ``` is inclined to set aside the award of the tribunal by which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant, was dismissed. ``` ``` 9. Since the claim of the appellant/claimant ``` ``` was dismissed by the tribunal, the compensation part was not considered on merit. So it is necessary to remand the matter for fresh ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 9 ``` consideration and to pass appropriate award, determining the quantum of compensation entitled by the appellant/claimant. ``` ``` 10. Both parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Attingal on 24/6/2024. ``` ``` 11. The accident in the case on hand ``` ``` occurred on 29/5/2008, and the appellant was ``` ``` prosecuting the matter till today, seeking ``` ``` compensation for the injuries suffered in that accident. So learned Tribunal shall give priority to this case, and dispose it of, at ``` ``` the earliest, at any rate, within six months from today. ``` ``` 12. The appellant/claimant is at liberty to ``` MACA No.2296 of 2014 10 ``` adduce additional evidence if any to ``` ``` substantiate his claim, and it shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of their appearance before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Attingal. ``` ``` Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Attingal forthwith. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` SOPHY THOMAS, ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` ska ```