Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
V. Babu S/O. Vasavan - Respondent
MACA NO. 350 OF 2012
Decided On : 10-06-2022
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173- Appeal - Motor Accident Claims - Contribution of negligence - whether the petitioners herein established the allegation of negligence against the 2nd respondent and they proved the death of 'Lalam' as a result of the accidental injuries - petitioners must prove not only the negligence on the part of the driver or rider, but also to prove that the person alleged to have sustained injuries in a motor accident died in consequence of the accidental injuries. [Para 16 & 17]
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners miserably failed to establish the negligence against the 2nd respondent and the reason for the death as direct consequence of accidental injuries. If so, negligence could not be found against the 2nd respondent without support of evidence. In view of the matter, without much ado, it has to be held that the award impugned is not liable to sustain.
Result: Allowed
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
Proof of Negligence and Causation of Death: For a successful claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners must establish two essential elements: (a) negligence on the part of the driver or rider of the involved vehicle, and (b) that the death of the person was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident (!) (!) .
Reliance on Police Reports and Evidence: While police charge sheets or final reports can be indicative, they are not conclusive. Independent and substantive evidence, such as eye-witness testimony, is necessary to establish negligence. In this case, the final police report contradicted the allegations of negligence, and no independent eyewitness evidence was produced to substantiate the claim (!) (!) .
Hearsay and Witness Testimony: Evidence from persons who are not direct witnesses, such as the husband of the deceased, is considered hearsay and insufficient to prove negligence or causation. The court emphasized the need for direct evidence or reliable eyewitness testimony to establish negligence (!) (!) .
Injury and Cause of Death: The injuries noted in the medical certificate did not conclusively link the injuries to the death, especially since no autopsy or inquest was conducted to establish that the death resulted from the accident injuries. The evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that the injuries caused the death, particularly given the deceased’s prior health history and the absence of postmortem evidence (!) (!) .
Assessment of Evidence and Burden of Proof: The court highlighted that the burden of proof rests on the petitioners to demonstrate negligence and the causal link to death. The final police report’s findings, which indicated that the allegations were false after investigation, were not rebutted by independent evidence. The absence of eyewitness testimony or other reliable evidence led to the conclusion that negligence had not been established (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Consequence: Since the petitioners failed to prove the necessary elements, the court held that the claim for compensation could not be sustained. The original award was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the claim (!) (!) .
Overall Summary: The court underscored the importance of direct, credible evidence to establish negligence and causation in motor accident claims. Reliance solely on police reports or hearsay evidence is insufficient, especially when such reports contradict the allegations. The case exemplifies the requirement for substantive proof to substantiate claims of negligence and resultant death in motor vehicle accident claims.
Note: The court’s decision emphasizes that without supporting direct evidence, particularly eyewitness testimony or postmortem findings, claims based solely on hearsay or police reports cannot succeed in establishing negligence or causation of death in motor accident claims.
JUDGMENT :
This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the 3rd respondent in O.P(MV).No.1459/2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the original petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel Advocate George Cherian appearing for the petitioner and Advocate A.T.Anilkumar, appearing for the 2nd respondent. Though notice was served upon respondents 1 and 3, they did not appear.
3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as to their status before the Tribunal, viz., `petitioners' as well as the `3rd respondent'.
4. Summary of the case: Husband and 2 sons of deceased one `Lalam' had filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal on the allegation that the above said `Lalam' died in a motor accident occurred on 17.05.2005 at about 3 p.m while she was travelling on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-04/Q-4895 as a pillion rider, which was driven by the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the brother of the above said `Lalam'. According to the petitioners, the accident was the contribution of negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the rider of the motorcycle. On the above facts, the petitioners claimed Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 to 3. The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the rider and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the motorcycle.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 were set exparte by the Tribunal.
6. The 3rd respondent, insurer, filed written statement raising the following contentions. The accident involving motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-04/Q-4895 and the negligence attributed against the 2nd respondent were denied. It was contended that police not registered any case at the first instance and later, crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint lodged before the Magistrate Court, after a period of 3½ months. The death of `Lalam' was not due to motor accident or due to the resultant cause of injuries sustained. The death was natural one and there was no postmortem certificate or inquest, to hold otherwise. It was contended further that the above said Lalam underwent valve surgery about 10 years back at Sree Chitra Thirunal Hospital and she died in consequence of the said trauma. Apart from that, while admitting the policy in relation to the motorbike bearing Registration No.KL-04/Q-4895, the claim under various heads also was disputed.
7. The Tribunal ventured the matter. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A16 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. Exts.B1 and B2 documents were marked on the side of the respondents.
8. Thereafter, the Tribunal found negligence against the 2nd respondent and granted Rs.4,68,856/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
9. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/appellant/insurer zealously argued that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that `Lalam' died in consequence of the injuries sustained by her in the alleged accident. It is also argued that no evidence adduced before the Tribunal to find negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. According to the learned counsel, in this matter, though the accident was on 17.05.2005 and `Lalam' died thereafter, no crime was registered regarding the occurrence. Similarly, consequent on the death of `Lalam', no inquest, no postmortem certificate etc. were prepared to prove prima facie that the death of `Lalam' was sequel to the accident or the same as an unnatural death. However, after 3 ½ months, ie. on 3.9.2005, crime was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C, pursuant to a private complaint lodged before the Magistrate Court. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would urge that the petitioners not produced the final report in the above crime, before the Tribunal. However, the insurer produced the same as Ext.B2. According to the learned counsel, Ext.B2 would indic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
