High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-01Appeals allowed; impugned award set aside; OP(M...

Jafeth Koshy v. Jithin S/O Rajendran and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 272 of 2020 (D) / MACA No. 2099 of 2020 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-03-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; impugned award set aside; OP(MV) No.1145/2014 dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; impugned award set aside; OP(MV) No.1145/2014 dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jafeth Koshy

Respondents

Jithin S/O Rajendran
Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jacob P. Alex
• Joseph P. Alex
• Manu Sankar P.

Counsels for Respondents

• P. K. Manojkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common Kerala High Court judgment (MacA Nos. 272 of 2020 and 2099 of 2020) by Justice C. S. Dias, delivered on 01 March 2021, arising from an award in OP(MV) No. 1145 of 2014 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner, Jafeth Koshy, sustained injuries in a road traffic collision on 23.12.2013 while overtaking a car; the vehicle involved was owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 as compensation with costs, but the insurer and the owner challenged this. The core legal issue concerns the evidentiary value of a police charge sheet under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether a petition under Sec. 166 can be converted by the Tribunal into a petition under Sec. 163A. The court reiterates that police charge sheets can be prima facie evidence of negligence (per Pazhaniammal and National Insurance Co.) and that courts cannot convert a Sec.166 petition to Sec.163A (as held in Akbar Shihab and Deepal Girishbhai Soni). On the facts, the Tribunal erred in treating the charge sheet as conclusive or in converting the petition to Sec.163A; it also improperly concluded there was no disability. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned award, and dismissed OP(MV) 1145/2014, directing the matter to proceed in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Charge sheet/final report filed by the police is prima facie evidence of negligence, unless the proof is rebutted.
Tribunal cannot convert a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to a petition under Section 163A of the Act.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in relying on Ext. B1 (police charge sheet) as conclusive proof of negligence and in converting the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act to a proceeding under Section 163A. It argues that the police report is only prima facie evidence and must be rebutted, and that the case should be decided on merits under the MV Act. The appellant relies on Akbar Shihab (2012) and Deepal Girishbhai Soni (2004) to assert that such conversion is impermissible and that Pazhaniammal requires a robust examination of evidence. The appellant seeks restoration of the original petition and a merits-based decision on entitlement under Sec.166.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the accident involved the petitioner’s alleged negligence and that Ext. B1 (the charge sheet under Sec. 304 IPC) supports dismissal of the claim as the case involves culpable homicide. They argue the Tribunal correctly treated the matter, maintaining that compensation under Sec.166 is not tenable where charges indicate offence. They urge upholding the Tribunal’s approach and relying on police findings to defeat the claim.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others	2011(3) KLT 648	Positive	Divisional benches held that police charge sheets can be prima facie evidence of negligence, a principle cited in the present judgment.
National Insurance Company Ltd., Thalassery v. Ramla and Others	2016(4)KHC 891	Positive	Reiterates the evidentiary weight of police charge sheets in negligence determinations.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Akbar Shihab	2012(2) KLT 242	Positive	Prohibits conversion of a Sec.166 claim into Sec.163A by the Tribunal.
Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd	(2004) 5 SCC 385	Positive	Supreme Court principle that Tribunal cannot convert a 166 claim to 163A is applicable; used to support the court’s view on unlawful conversion.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jafeth Koshy v. Jithin S/O Rajendran and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.272 OF 2020(D)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.1145/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 03.01.2020** ## **APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT:** **JAFETH KOSHY AGED 50 YEARS KULANGARA JJ VILLA, EDAKKAD (PO), PORUVAZHY, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 552.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 2ND RESPONDENT:** **1 JITHIN S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT REMYALAYAM, PARAKOOTTAMM (PO), MUNDAPPALLY MURI, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PIN-691 551.** **2 MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KOLLAM P.O., PIN-691 001.** **R2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.2099/2020(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **MACA.No.2099 OF 2020(F)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.1145/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 03.01.2020** ## **APPELLANT/2D RESPONDENT:** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY BRANCH OFFICE,KOLLAM,MANAGER, REPRESENTED BY THE DULY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,KOCHI-682011.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1:** |**1**|**JITHIN, AGED 22**| |---|---| ||**S/O.RAJENDRAN,RESIDING AT REMYALAYAM,**| ||**PARAKOOTTAMM POST,MUNDAPPALLY MURI,**| ||**PERINGANADU VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PIN-691551.**| |**2**|**JAFETH KOSHY,**| ||**KULANGARA JJ VILLA,**| ||**EDAKKADU POST,**| ||**PORUVAZHY,KUNNATHOOR,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691552.**| ||**R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX**| ||**SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX**| ||**SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.272/2020(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 3 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MACA Nos.272 & 2099 of 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2021 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** As these appeals arise out of the same award i.e., in OP(MV)No.1145 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, and the parties being the same, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the original petition. 2. The concise background facts, for the determination of the appeal, in the claim petition are that: on 23.12.2013 while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 26D/3217, through the Adoor-Kadambanadu public road, and was attempting to overtake an Innova Car bearing registration No.KL 61 7899, a motorcycle bearing **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 4 registration No. KL 26D/3217 (offending vehicle) ridden by one Jaffin Jaffiath (deceased) - the son of the 1[st] respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and while talking on his mobile phone, came from the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. The petitioner was thrown on the road. The petitioner sustained injuries and was treated at various hospitals. The offending vehicle is owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence the claim petition. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents. The 1[st] respondent filed a written objection, refuting the allegations in the original petition. According to the 1[st] respondent, the alleged accident was a pre planned murder committed by the petitioner. On the ill-fated day, while the 1[st] respondent's son had stopped his vehicle on the road **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 5 margin and was speaking on his mobile phone, the petitioner, out of previous animosity, wilfully hit the motorcycle against the 1[st] respondent's son, and murdered him. The police after investigation have filed a chargesheet, arraigning the petitioner as an accused for having committed an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written objection, reiterating the same very contention as that of the 1[st] respondent. It is the case of the 2[nd] respondent that as per the charge sheet, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation as it is a case of culpable homicide. Therefore, the claim petition is only to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner and a witness were examined as PW's 1 and 2 and Exhibits A1 to A21 were marked through them in evidence. The Village Officer was examined as DW1 and Exhibits D1 and D2 series were **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 6 marked in evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by ordering the 2[nd] respondent-insurer to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner with cost of Rs.5,000/- . 7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, both the respondents are in appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. Undisputedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. The Tribunal, after relying on Ext.B1 charge sheet, by its own findings in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the award has found that the deceased was not negligent, but it was the petitioner who caused the accident. 11. Division Benches of this Court in **New India** **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 7 **Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others** [2011(3) KLT 648] and **National Insurance Company Ltd., Thalassery v. Ramla and Others** [2016(4)KHC 891], have categorically laid down the law the chargesheet/final report filed by the police is _prima facie_ evidence of negligence, unless the proof is rebutted. 12. In the case on hand, the police after investigation have filed Annexure B1 charge sheet in Crime No.2384/2013 of the Adoor Police Station, specifically finding that it was the petitioner who had caused the accident, and the same was with the mensrea to cause death of the deceased. The police have charge sheeted the petitioner for an offence under Section 304 of the IPC. 13. Surprisingly, the Tribunal after relying on the ratio in **Pazhaniammal** (supra), Ext.B1 charge sheet and finding that the petitioner has not rebutted the **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 8 onus of proof, instead of dismissing the claim petition, curiously, _suo motu_ converted the petition to one filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in **United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Akbar Shihab** [2012(2) KLT 242], relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd** [(2004) 5 SCC 385], has succinctly laid down the law that the Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that no case has been made out for awarding compensation under Sec.166 of the Act, cannot convert a claim petition to one under Sec.163A of the Act. The above ratio applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. 15. In light of the law declared in **Akbar Shihab** and **Deepal Girishbhai Soni** (supra), I have no hesitation to hold that the course adopted by the Tribunal is patently erroneous and ex-facie **MACA.No.272 &2099 OF 2020** 9 unsustainable in law. 16. In the above factual and legal situation, I am of the definite opinion that award passed by the Tribunal, especially after finding that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and that the petitioner has not suffered any disability, is erroneous and only liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and OP (MV) No.1145/2014 is dismissed. Needless to state, the competent Court trying the proceedings pursuant to Ext B1 charge-sheet, shall try the case untrammeled by any observations made in this judgment. ## **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** dlK 01.03.2021