IMPORTANT POINT
The police charge sheet serves as prima facie evidence of negligence, and medical records are crucial in determining the cause of death and quantum of compensation in motor accident cases.

Common facts govern M.A.C.A.No.1019 of 2013 and M.A.C.A.No.2249 of 2013, which are filed challenging the Award dated 18.03.2013 in O.P.(M.V.)No.476 of 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). Hence both M.A.C.As. are considered together.

2. Facts in brief from the O.P. (M.V.):

On 01.06.2005, at around 7.45 p.m., one Sri.John Varkey while riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/A-1928 through Perumbadavam-Anthiyal public road had a collision with a jeep, which was driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The jeep was being driven in excessive speed from opposite direction and it had hit against the motorcycle causing grievous injuries to Sri.John Varkey. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery, for immediate treatment and thereafter he underwent treatment at various hospitals before succumbing to death on 17.05.2006. The O.P.(M.V.) had been filed by Sri.John Varkey while he was alive and was undergoing treatment. The owner, driver and insurer of the jeep were respondents 1 to 3 in the O.P.(M.V). Subsequent to the death of Sri.John Varkey, petitioners 2 to 5 in the O.P.(M.V), who are his legal heirs, got impleaded.

3. Proceedings before the Tribunal:

The 6th and 7th respondents viz., the owner and driver of the jeep respectively remained ex parte. The appellant Insurance Company filed a written statement disputing the accident and the quantum of compensation claimed. Issues were duly framed by the Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A17 were produced by the petitioners therein. Ext.B1 was marked by the appellant Insurance Company and X1 was marked through a witness. Claimants examined PW1 & PW2 from their side. No witnesses were examined from the side of the appellant Insurance Company.

4. Award of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal, after trial, awarded an amount of Rs.3,33,900/-as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the O.P.(M.V.) till its realisation. Proportionate costs were also allowed.

5. Aggrieved by the Award, M.A.C.A.No.1019 of 2013 is filed by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside or modify the same. On the other hand against the same award, M.A.C.A.No.2249 of 2013 is filed by the wife and son of deceased Sri.John Varkey aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent in the said M.A.C.A. is the Insurance Company.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I now proceed to consider each M.A.C.A. separately.

M.A.C.A.No.1019 of 2013

7. Contentions raised by the Appellant Insurance Company in brief:

The alleged collision between the bike and the jeep is a fabricated story for the purpose of the claim.

Injury suffered by the deceased was occasioned due to the skidding of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/A-1928 that was being driven by Sri.John Varkey and not due to collision with the jeep.

Ext.A6 wound certificate clearly states that the accident occurred due to skidding of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased.

Entries in Ext.A6 were furnished by the son of the deceased at the time of examination by the doctor. Hence version of skidding of bike stated therein is valid and reliable.

Ext.A6 wound certificate is the earliest document available in point of time. This increases its reliability.

Subsequent documents produced as Exts.A1 to A5 as well as Ext.A12 judgment, are the result of collusion and hence ought not to have been relied on by the Tribunal.

The deposition of PW1 Smt.Alley John, wife of the deceased, substantiates the contention of the appellant that the collision with jeep is a fabricated story.

This Court in the judgment dated 26.03.2013 in M.A.C.A.No.1690 of 2005 (Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seetha Devi B. and others), which has comparable facts and circumstances, has held that if the evidence available does not support the theory of accident, then the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability