High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-06-06Appeal allowed; award set aside; remanded for f...

Krishnakumar S/o Gopalakrishnan v. Madhu P.S. & Anr. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.)

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2749 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-06-06
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned award is set aside and the petition remitted for fresh disposal. The claimant is to be afforded an opportunity to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence and the negligence attributed against the first respondent. The Tribunal is to consider the evidence laid and decide accordingly. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 8.7.2019.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award set aside; remanded for fresh disposal with opportunity for independent evidence to prove occurrence and negligence.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishnakumar S/o Gopalakrishnan, Puthiyedathu House, Kanjiramattom Kara, Thodupuzha Village

Respondents

Madhu P.S. S/o. Sreedharan Nair, Poovanchery House, Thodupuzha East Post, Thodupuzha - 685 585
Joshy A. Chemparathy S/o. Augustine, Chemparathickal House, Muthalakodam, Thodupuzha - 685 585
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager, Muvattupuzha - 685 584

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mathew John (K)
• Sri Domson J. Vattakkuzhy

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Lal George
• Sri A.A. Ziyad Rahman

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act challenges a District Tribunal’s dismissal of a compensation petition filed by the claimant, Krishnakumar S/o Gopalakrishnan. The incident reportedly occurred on 5 June 2009 when, while travelling in a tempo traveller driven by the first respondent, the claimant alighted to urinate and, on re-mounting, was run over by the vehicle’s rear left wheel, leading to serious injuries. The insurer contended that no accident took place and that the injuries were not caused by a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal, after examining records, held that the claimant had not established the occurrence or negligence, and dismissed the petition. The claimant adduced a police charge-sheet against the driver as documentary proof of an accident and negligence. The Tribunal, however, treated the charge-sheet as potentially collusive and demanded independent evidence, declining to rely on it alone. Relying on Pazhaniammal (2011) 3 KLT 648, the High Court observed that police chargesheets can serve as evidence of negligence, and that where such evidence is questioned as collusive, the Tribunal must permit independent evidence before dismissing. The High Court set aside the award, remanding for fresh adjudication with a clear direction to allow independent evidence and to consider the occurrence and negligence anew.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Chapters XI and XII

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inquisitorial nature of proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Police charge sheet as evidence of negligence; Tribunal must permit independent evidence if charge sheet is collusive or not accepted on cogent grounds

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimant asserts that the police charge-sheet against the driver substantiates the occurrence and negligence. He contends the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition without allowing independent evidence of the occurrence and negligence, relying on the charge-sheet as per the principle in Pazhaniammal. The case is one of social welfare legislation aimed at prompt compensation; the Tribunal should not deny relief on technicalities, especially where police records exist. He argues that the charge-sheet, produced on record, should be treated as credible evidence of the accident and negligence, and that the Tribunal should furnish an opportunity to prove the event with independent evidence when necessary; the delay in reporting and travel distance to hospital, while noted, cannot defeat the substantive claim given the statutory objective of expeditious relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends that there was no accident on the date in question and that the injuries alleged were not caused by a motor-vehicle accident. It argues that the Tribunal was correct to require independent evidence and that reliance solely on a police charge-sheet is inappropriate if the charge-sheet is contested as collusive or unreliable. It also points to delays in reporting and the claimant’s travel to a distant hospital as suspicious factors undermining the reliability of the claim. The respondents maintain that the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss was proper unless independent corroboration is produced; the High Court should not interfere with the factual assessment unless legal principles were misapplied.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal	2011(3) KLT 648	Positive	The court cites Pazhaniammal to support that a police charge-sheet can be accepted as evidence of negligence; if the charge-sheet is collusive or unacceptable, the Tribunal must allow independent evidence before dismissing.

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 Krishnakumar S/o Gopalakrishnan v. Madhu P.S. & Anr. (The New India Assurance 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941 MACA.No.2749 of 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.314/2010 of the ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT – IV,ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – II, THODUPUZHA, DATED 20.09.2014** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **KRISHNAKUMAR S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKKUZHY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MADHU P.S. S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, POOVANCHERY HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST POST, THODUPUZHA - 685 585.** - **2 JOSHY A.CHEMPARATHY S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHEMPARATHICKAL HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA - 685 585.** - **3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MUVATTUPUZHA - 685 584.** **BY ADVS. SRI.LAL GEORGE SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 2 ## **C.R.** ## **J U D G M E N T** The claimant in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. 2. The claim petition was filed stating that the claimant was proceeding to Thodupuzha from Coimbatore on 05.06.2009 in a tempo traveller driven by the first respondent; that he alighted from the vehicle for passing urine in the course of the journey when the vehicle stopped for a while near Amballoor in Thrissur district; that the first respondent took the vehicle forward abruptly while he was mounting back on the vehicle and that, as a result, he fell down on the road and the rear left wheel of the vehicle rolled over his left leg, causing serious injuries to him including fracture of the bones of one of M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 3 his lower limbs. The case set out in the claim petition, in the circumstances, was that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent and the claimant is, therefore entitled to compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the tempo traveller. The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the vehicle contending, among others, that the vehicle was not involved in any accident on the relevant day and that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by the claimant are not the injuries caused on account of any motor accident. The Tribunal found that the claimant has not established that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by him as pleaded are injuries caused on account of any motor accident, and consequently dismissed the claim petition. As noted, the claimant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the insurer. M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 4 4. It is seen that a case was registered by the Police in connection with the alleged occurrence based on the information furnished by the claimant and the first respondent was chargesheeted in the said case for having caused the accident by negligent driving. The claimant produced before the Tribunal, among others, the chargesheet laid by the Police against the first respondent to establish the alleged occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. Since it was specifically contended by the insurer that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by the claimant were not injuries caused on account of any motor accident, the Tribunal took the view that the claimant ought to have adduced evidence in a matter like this to prove the occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. That apart, the Tribunal noticed that the alleged occurrence was informed by the claimant to the Police only after about five days and the claimant has not offered any satisfactory explanation M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 5 for the delay. The Tribunal found that the conduct of the claimant in going to a hospital located about 100 kilometres away from the alleged place of occurrence was also suspicious. It is in the above circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has not established that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by him were not injuries caused on account of any motor accident. 5. In **New India Assurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Pazhaniammal** (2011(3) KLT 648), this court held that chargesheet laid by the police after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee and it is for the party who do not accept such chargesheet to let in evidence to prove negligence on the part of the party against whom negligence is attributed by him. Even before the said judgement, independent evidence to prove negligence on the part of the person against whom negligence is attributed was not insisted by the Tribunals in the State as a practice and the M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 6 parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal used to let in independent evidence to prove the negligence only in cases where there is no Police case or where the chargesheet laid by the Police is not acceptable to them. But it is seen that in cases where the parties abstain from adducing independent evidence to prove negligence on the part of the indictee placing reliance on the chargesheet laid by the Police, the Tribunal will have no option but to dismiss the claim petition, if it finds that the chargesheet is a collusive one or that the same cannot be accepted for other cogent reasons. Such decisions by the Tribunals would cause grave injustice to the claimants in genuine cases and they may have to approach the appellate forums to get an opportunity to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence alleged as also the negligence attributed. Chapters XI and XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) being social welfare legislations intended to enable the victims of motor accidents to claim compensation for the M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 7 injuries caused to them, in an expeditious manner and the proceedings before the Tribunal being inquisitorial in nature, I am of the view that in the event the Tribunal finds that the chargesheet laid by the Police which was placed on record to prove the accident and the negligence on the part of the indictee is a collusive one or that the same cannot be accepted for other cogent reasons, it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to record a finding to that effect and call upon the claimant to adduce independent evidence of the occurrence and the negligence attributed against the indictee, before dismissing the claim petition for want of evidence, with a view to give effect to the statutory provisions in its true spirit and to avoid unnecessary delay in the disbursal of compensation in genuine cases. 6. Coming to the case on hand, there is no dispute to the fact that in the case registered at the instance of the claimant, after investigation, the Police came to the conclusion M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 8 that there was a motor accident as alleged by the claimant; that the said accident was caused by the first respondent on account of negligent driving and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. As noted, the chargesheet laid by the Police was part of the records before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal, in essence, is that the Police charge is a collusive one. If that be so, the Tribunal should have rendered a finding to that effect and given an opportunity to the claimant to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence as also the negligence attributed against the first respondent. In so far as the Tribunal has not adopted the said course, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 7. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the claim petition is remitted for fresh disposal after affording the claimant an opportunity to adduce independent evidence to prove the occurrence and the negligence attributed against the first respondent. It is made clear that I have not examined the M.A.C.A No.2749 of 2015 9 correctness or otherwise of the case set out by the claimant in the claim petition and the Tribunal is free to take appropriate decision having regard to the evidence let in by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.7.2019. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** DK