United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nambarkunnath Umaimu and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-10-30
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; Tribunal’s award upheld; no interference with quantum or liability.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Respondents

Nambarkunnath Umaimu
Sahina Nambarkunnath
N.K. Abobacker Hajee
N.K. Sainaba
Sijo P.J.
Mrs. Kanchan Manruk Rodiya (Ashirh Transport Co. Ltd.)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri. K.P. Sudheer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a motor accident claims appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Kerala High Court, arising from a collision on 2 October 2002 that killed Moideen, who was riding a motorcycle when a lorry (GJ-6W-7378) allegedly driven rashly struck the motorcyclist. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 8,96,000 to the claimants—the wife, minor daughter, parents, and others of the deceased. The appellant insurer challenges the Tribunal’s award on two fronts. First, it questions the Tribunal’s negligence apportionment, arguing that Ext. A2 (scene mahazar) indicates the motorcyclist was on the wrong side, and that the Tribunal’s 75:25 allocation in favor of the lorry driver cannot be sustained. The insurer further contends that there was no rebuttal evidence to refute the evidence pointing to the insurer’s liability and that Ext. A4 (final police report) and Ext. A1–A2 establish negligence by the first respondent. Second, the insurer questions quantum components such as income, deductions, and several heads of compensation, arguing the Tribunal failed to properly assess prospects of the deceased and the dependents. The respondents rely on PW1, PW2 and Ext. A2 to show rash driving by the lorry driver. The High Court ultimately upheld the Tribunal’s findings, rejected the insurer’s challenges, and dismissed the appeal, keeping the award intact.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 279IPC Section 304A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Charge-sheet is prima facie evidence to prove negligence (as per National Insurance Company v. Pazhaniammal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer argued that Ext. A2 shows the deceased motorcyclist was on the wrong side of the road, and the Tribunal’s 75:25 negligence split favoring the first respondent cannot be sustained. There was no independent rebuttal evidence presented by the insurer; reliance on Ext. A4 final police report (and Ext. A1 FIR) to show negligence should be weighed carefully, and the court should re-evaluate the quantum components in light of the lack of conclusive evidence regarding income and living needs. The insurer also pointed out procedural gaps in establishing Ext. A2 and questioned the lack of evidence to prove the deceased’s abroad earnings claim.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver. PW1 and PW2 supported the claim that the deceased rode on the correct side and that the lorry driver was negligent, justifying the Tribunal’s 75:25 allocation in favor of the respondents. They relied on Ext. A2 and Ext. A4 to show negligence, and invoked the principle that a charge-sheet can constitute prima facie evidence of negligence, as affirmed in National Insurance Company v. Pazhaniammal to support the liability of the insurer.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company v. Pazhaniammal	2011 (3) KLT 648	Positive	The Court relied on this principle to treat charge-sheet as prima facie evidence of negligence by the accused, supporting the insurer’s liability arguments.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/8TH KARTHIKA, 1939 MACA.No. 2354 of 2007 ( ) -------------------------OPMV 247/2003 of M.A.C.T. TIRUR DATED 15-02-2007 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER 1 TO 4 AND R1 & 2: ------------------------------------------- 1. NAMBARKUNNATH UMAIMU, 24 YEARS, W/O.MOIDEEN (DECEASED), NAMBARKUNNATH HOUSE,, KUNNUMPURAM, KUTTOOR NORTH P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK 2. SAHINA NAMBARKUNNATH (MINOR) 1 YEAR, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. 3. N.K.ABOOBACKER HAJEE 65 YEARS, S/O.BEERANKUTY, NAMBARKUNNATH HOUSE,, KUNNUMPURAM, KUTTOOR NORTH P.O. 4. N.K.SAINABA, 60 YEARS, W/O.ABOOBACKER HAJEE, NAMBARKUNNATH HOUSE,, KUNNUMPURAM, KUTTOOR NORTH P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK. 5. SIJO P.J., S/O.JOSHI, 26 YEARS, PULIYANI HOUSE, P.O. V.R.PURAM,, NEAR SASTHANKUNNU TEMPLE, VIA KALLETTINKARA,, CHALAKKUDI, THRISSUR DISTRICT (DRIVER) 6. MRS. KANCHAN MANRUK RODIYA, ASHIRH TRANSPORT CO.LTD., GODAVARI, 2/2 OVERAL PARK, 2ND POKHARAN ROAD,, THANA, MAHARASHTRA (OWNER) R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## C.T. RAVIKUMAR ## & B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, JJ. ........................................................... ## M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 .............................................................. Dated this the 30[th] day of October, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## Sudheendra Kumar, J The appellant is the 3[rd] respondent in the claim petition. The claim petitioners are the wife, minor daughter aged 1 ½ years, the father and the mother of deceased Moideen, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 2-10-2002 at 12 noon. While deceased Moideen was riding a motor cycle along the public road, a lorry bearing Registration No. GJ-6W-7378 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the said motor cycle and as a M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 2 consequence, the deceased sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries before reaching the hospital. 2. In connection with the death of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 8,96,000/- as compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4. The appellant contended that eventhough Ext.A2 scene mahazar would show that the vehicle was driven by the deceased along the wrong side of the road, the Tribunal attributed 75% negligence on the part of the first M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 3 respondent before the Tribunal and hence, the said finding cannot be sustained. 5. On the side of the appellant, no evidence was adduced. On the other hand, the claimants adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The first claimant was examined as PW1 and the pillion rider of the motor cycle was examined as PW2. PW2 clearly stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent before the Tribunal. It is further in the evidence of PW2 that the deceased was riding the motor cycle along the correct side of the road. The Tribunal relied on Ext. A2 and found that the first respondent before the Tribunal and the deceased were negligent in the ratio 75:25. M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 4 6. This Court in National Insurance Company v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] held that charge-sheet is prima facie evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the person who is named as the accused in the chargesheet. In this case, Ext.A1 is the FIR registered in connection with this case, which would show that the first respondent before the Tribunal was negligent in driving the lorry. Ext. A4 is the final report which would also show that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent before the Tribunal. The police after conducting the investigation filed Ext.A4 final report against the first respondent before the Tribunal for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. It appears from Ext.A2 that the police M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 5 prepared Ext. A2 on the basis of and as pointed out by Sri. Alavi. However, it is not discernible as to whether the said Alavi was an occurrence witness or not. There is absolutely no evidence to prove the same. That apart, nobody was examined to prove Ext.A2 scene mahazar. We find that apart from Ext. A4 final report, there is evidence of PW2 to prove the negligence on the part of the first respondent before the Tribunal in driving the lorry. We notice that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the finding in Ext. A4 final report and the evidence of PW2. In view of the above reason, we are of the view that the evidence on record would clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent before the Tribunal in driving the vehicle. Therefore, we are of the view that no M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 6 interference in this regard at the instance of the appellant is warranted. 7. The next point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It was contended by the claimants that the deceased was working abroad as a Barbar, earning Rs. 35000/- per month. However, no document was produced before the Tribunal to prove the same. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal had taken Rs. 4,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the dependency compensation. The deceased was aged 30 years during the relevant period. Therefore, the Tribunal had taken '17' as the multiplier for calculating the dependency compensation. M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 7 Since there are four dependents of the deceased, onefourth of the income of the deceased had to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. However, in this case, the Tribunal did not deduct onefourth of the income as stated above for calculating the dependency compensation. Therefore, it is on the higher side . However, we find that no amount was granted to the claimants towards love and affection eventhough the claimants include 1 ½ year old child and the parents of the deceased aged 60 and 65 years. We further notice that no amount was granted by the Tribunal as compensation towards loss of estate. Eventhough the first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, was only aged 24 years, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium, which is on the lower side. M.A.C.A. NO. 2354 of 2007 8 Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2500/-. Taking into consideration of the above aspects, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in its totality, does not appear to be exorbitant or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has not made out a case warranting interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. **Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** **Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _ani/1-11-_ _/true copy/_ _P.S. to Judge_