High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2013-11-18Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s order set aside; mat...

N.R. Meenakshi and others v. M.R. Santhosh and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.180 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2013-11-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; setting aside the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim petition; the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with liberty granted to the appellants to adduce further evidence to prove death resulted from injuries sustained in the accident. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.12.2013 for further proceedings.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s order set aside; matter remitted for fresh disposal with an opportunity to adduce further evidence.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

N.R.Meenkshi
M.R.Dhanya
M.R.Dhaneesh

Respondents

M.R.Santhosh
VARKeyachan
Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SHEJI P. ABRAHAM

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Praveen Kumar
• A.R. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

The claimants in OP(MV) No.1404/07 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, sought compensation for the death of their breadwinner, Ramakrishnan, alleging death due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s vehicle, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third. The Tribunal found no credible evidence that the deceased sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached this Court arguing that the police report, though not contradicted, establishes a prima facie case of negligence in line with Pazhani Ammal and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim. They urged remand to allow them to adduce further evidence, including medical records, to prove that death resulted from injuries sustained in the accident. The insurance company contended there was no illegality in the Tribunal’s finding and supported dismissal. The High Court acknowledged that medical records did not clearly show injuries from an accident but noted the police report indicated an accident and chest injuries, citing Pazhani Ammal that police reports can be prima facie evidence, yet may be undermined by collusion. It held that such evidence is not conclusive and that the appellants should be afforded an opportunity to present additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal’s dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal with liberty to adduce further evidence; the parties were directed to appear on a specified date for further proceedings.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Police report as prima facie evidence of negligence (subject to contra evidence)
Courts may require better evidence if collusion between owner and driver is suspected
Police report not the final word regarding negligence

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the police investigation/charge sheet, though not contradicted, establishes a prima facie case of negligence in terms of Pazhani Ammal. They highlight that the Tribunal’s dismissal rests on lack of direct evidence tying death to the accident, despite police records indicating injuries consistent with an accident. They urge remand to permit production of additional evidence, including medical records, to establish that death was caused by injuries from the accident and to enable proper assessment of compensation. They rely on Pazhani Ammal to press that police proof may suffice in the absence of contra evidence, and seek leave to adduce further evidence if needed. They also request opportunity to summon medical documents to clarify the cause of death and to explore potential evidentiary gaps.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel submitted that there was no illegality in the Tribunal’s order and upheld the dismissal of the petition. They argued that there is no robust evidence tying the death to injuries from a road accident, and that the medical records do not reflect injuries sustained in the accident. They urged against remand, maintaining that the record does not justify overturning the Tribunal’s findings and that any remand should not be granted without compelling grounds.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Pazhani Ammal	2011(3) KLT 648	Partly Overruled / Limited	The court cites Pazhani Ammal to acknowledge police report as prima facie evidence in absence of contra evidence, but its ratio is limited by the possibility of collusion and the principle that it cannot be the final word; remand is allowed to gather further evidence.

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 N.R. Meenakshi and others v. M.R. Santhosh and others 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 S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/27TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **MACA.No. 180 of 2011 ( )** **------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO. 1404/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM DATED 04-08-2010 ----------------** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :** **-------------------------------------------** ## **1. N.R.MEENAKSHI, AGED 51 YEARS,** **W/O.LATE. M.P. RAMAKRISHNAN, MADACHIMPPARA HOUSE VYASAGIRI P.O., PARLIKKAD DESOM VADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **2. M.R.DHANYA, AGED 23 YEARS,** - **D/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, -DO-** ## **3. M.R.DHANEESH, AGED 21 YEARS,** - **S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, -DO-** **BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P. ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS :** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. M.R.SANTHOSH, AGE NOT KNOWN S/O.RAGHAVAN, MOLATH HOUSE, VELANOODE P.O. ELANAD, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR PIN-680 620.** **(DRIVER OF MINI LORRY REG.NO.KL 8 AF 808).** **2. VARKEYACHAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, MANAGING PARTNER, PEA-COCK ROCK PRODUCTS VYASAGIRI P.O., PARLIKKAD, THALAPPILLY TALUK THIRSSUR DT.-680 623 (OWNER OF THE MINI LORRY REG.NO.KL 8/AF 808).** **3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAHESWARI BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD THRISSUR, PIN-680 503, POLICY NO.441100/31/2007/1415 VALID FROM 17/6/2006 TO 16/5/2007.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** --------------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.180 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------Dated this, the 18[th] day of November 2013 ## Judgment ## Ramakrishnan, J. The claimants in OP(MV) No.1404/07 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, are the appellants herein. They filed the application for compensation for the death of their breadwinner, Ramakrishnan, who, according to them, died in a motor vehicle accident, caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that there is no evidence adduced on the side of the appellants to prove that the deceased sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and as such, the application is not maintainable and dismissed the application. MACA No.180/11 2 2. Dissatisfied with the finding of the Tribunal, the appellants have come up before this Court with the above appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the police, after investigation, submitted a final report against the driver of the vehicle for negligent driving and no contra evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents to disprove the finding of the investigating agency regarding the accident. So, according to him, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application. He had relied on the decision reported in **New India Assurance Company Limited v. Pazhani Ammal** (2011(3) KLT 648) in support of his submission. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that if, for any reason, this court finds that evidence is lacking, the appellant may be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence to prove his case and for that MACA No.180/11 3 purpose, he prayed for a remand. 5. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that there is no illegality in the finding of the Tribunal and that does not call for any interference. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail. 7. It is true that the medical documents produced do not reveal that the deceased died on account of any injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. But, the police report shows that he sustained injuries in an accident and the death was due to chest injury. It is also true that in the decision in **Pazhani Ammal** 's case (supra), this Court has observed that in the absence of any contra evidence adduced on the side of the respondents, the police charge sheet has to be taken as a prima facie evidence for proving negligence. But, in the same decision, it has been observed that if the court feels that it is a collusive affair between the owner and the driver of the vehicle to betray the insurance company, the court can insist for better MACA No.180/11 4 evidence to prove the aspect. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the police report is the final word regarding negligence. But, considering the fact that the medical records produced do not show that it was a case of injury sustained in the accident and the counsel for the appellants prays for an opportunity to summon the medical records to find out whether there was any entry regarding the cause of injury, we feel that an opportunity has to be given to the appellants to adduce further evidence to prove their case by taking a lenient view. So, the finding of the Tribunal, dismissing the award, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellants to adduce further evidence to prove that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the award of the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in MACA No.180/11 5 accordance with law. The parties are given liberty to adduce further evidence on this aspect. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.12.2013 for further proceedings in the matter. **S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** **K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE** sta MACA No.180/11 6 MACA No.180/11 7