IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 645 of 2010()
1. ONDEN PRAMODKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. NAJEEB,
3. DIRECTOR,
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/11/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.645 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal. His claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding
that there was no evidence on record to show that the accident was
caused by respondent No.2 due to his rash and negligent driving.
2. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on
March 30, 1999 while he was proceeding from Kannur to
Thiruvananthapuram in a car , a police jeep bearing Reg.No. KL-01/P
3018 driven by respondent No.2 and coming from the opposite
direction hit against his vehicle resulting in serious injuries to him and
damage to the vehicle. Appellant alleged that the accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver
( respondent No.2). Appellant was admitted in a nearby hospital from
where he was later shifted to another hospital in Mangalore. He
claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation from the driver,
MACA.No.645/2010 2
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. Respondent No.1 contended before the Tribunal that the
accident had occurred only because of the negligence of the claimant
himself. The allegation that respondent No.2 was responsible for the
accident was stoutly denied. However, it was admitted that the vehicle
was validly insured with respondent No.4.
4. It appears that initially the Tribunal passed an ex parte
award in the case. But the said award was set aside later, on condition
that respondents pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost to the claimant. The
cost was paid and the award thus stood set aside.
5. Thereafter, the appellant got himself examined as PW1 and
one witness was examined on his side as PW2. Exts.A1 to A10 were
marked on his side. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the
respondents. Ext.X1 was also marked in the case. Respondent No.4
Insurance Company was impleaded in the case as the insurer of the
offending vehicle after the ex parte order was set aside. The Insurance
Company admitted that the vehicle was insured with it. However, the
allegation of negligence made against respondent No.2 was denied.
MACA.No.645/2010 3
6. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on
record came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory evidence to
show that respondent No.2 was rash and negligent while driving the
alleged offending vehicle. In this context, the Tribunal noticed that the
police had registered Crime No. 88/1999 against the appellant himself.
A copy of the said FIR was marked in the case as Ext.B4.
7. But according to the appellant, he had filed a private
complaint against respondent No.2 alleging offences punishable under
Section 279 and 338 of IPC. The police had registered Crime
No.337/1999 pursuant to the above complaint . It was further noticed
by the Tribunal that the allegation by the respondents that the appellant
had pleaded guilty to the charge levelled against him pursuant to Crime
No.88/1999 was not denied or disputed by the appellant. The Tribunal
also referred to the oral testimony of the appellant and came to the
conclusion that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the
accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.2.
8. We have carefully perused the lower court records which
MACA.No.645/2010 4
were called for by us. We have also heard learned counsel for the
parties.
9. It is not in dispute that the alleged accident had taken place
involving the two vehicles referred to earlier. The question that came
up before the Tribunal was whether the allegation of rashness and
negligence attributed against respondent No.2 had been established by
the appellant through satisfactory evidence.
10. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the police had
registered a case against the appellant himself as Crime No. 88/1999.
Significantly, Crime No. 337/1999 registered by the police against
respondent No.2 on the basis of the private complaint filed by him did
not yield any result. To a specific query made as to what happened to
the said crime and also whether police had charge sheeted respondent
No.2, the appellant could not give any satisfactory answer. More
importantly, the appellant did not produce any document to show that
respondent No.2 had been charge sheeted by the police pursuant to the
registration of Crime No. 337/1999 against him. The specific case of
the respondents that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge
MACA.No.645/2010 5
levelled in the case registered against him in Crime No. 88/19999 was
also not disputed or denied.
11. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we do
not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the
Tribunal. However, the direction issued by the Tribunal to the
appellant to refund Rs. 25,000/- awarded to him as cost, is set aside.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
MACA.No.645/2010 6