IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the summary and inquisitorial nature of the proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and emphasizes the reliance on prima facie evidence of negligence and the summary consideration of documents and evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 22.03.2014 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 468 of 2011 of the II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). The appellant was the 3rd respondent and the respondent was the claimant before the Tribunal.

2. Facts in brief:

On 09.04.2009, a Ford Escort car bearing registration No. KA-03-Z-1727 owned by the respondent which was parked on the side of the National Highway Near Ganesh Carriage, Kumbla, was hit by an Alto car bearing registration No. KL-60/6202. The appellant was the insurer of the said Alto car. It is alleged that the driver of the Alto car was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, thus causing it to hit on to the rear side of the Ford Escort Car. Since damage had occasioned to her car, respondent/claimant carried out repairs to the same and filed O.P. (M.V.) seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 1,07,000/- with interest.

3. Proceedings before the Tribunal:

In the O.P. (M.V.) though the driver of the Alto car was arrayed as the 1st respondent, the respondent herein failed to take due steps for issuance of notice against the driver. Hence the petition as against the driver happened to be dismissed. The owner of the Alto car, who was the 2nd respondent in the O.P. (M.V.) though was duly served with notice, remained ex-parte. The appellant Insurance Company alone contested the matter and they filed a written statement admitting the policy. Negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car and the quantum of compensation were contested by the appellant. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues and parties went to trial on the same. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the respondent/claimant. From the part of the appellant Insurance Company, Ext.B1 policy was marked.

4. Award of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal after separate consideration of the issues, found that the accident had occasioned due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Alto car and consequently found the appellant, the insurer, liable to pay compensation to the respondent/claimant for the damage occasioned to her car. The Tribunal in its Award held that the respondent is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,07,447/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation and for proportionate costs. The appellant was directed to deposit the same before the Tribunal within two months of the date of the Award. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant Insurance Company preferred the above M.A.C.A.

5. Heard Sri. Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. Though notice was served by affixture on the respondent, there was no appearance. As per Order dated 29.11.2022 in I.A. No. 1 of 2022, service of notice to the respondent was declared as complete.

6. Contentions of the appellant, in brief:

“Since the claim against the 1st respondent driver had already been dismissed due to the claimant's failure to serve notice upon him, negligence as alleged by the respondent has not been proved.

If no negligence is proved against the driver, the question of vicarious liability of the owner and the consequent obligation of the insurer to indemnify, does not arise.

Exts.A5 to A7 bills relied on by the Tribunal to arrive at the quantum of compensation have not been formally proved and hence said exhibits ought not have been relied on by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs. 1,07,447/- overlooking Ext.A4 survey report which had assessed the damages at a lesser amount of Rs. 67,700/-.

Since the vehicle is of the year 1997 and the accident occurred in 2009, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of depreciation while granting compensation.”

7. Discussion and Reasoning:

Before proceeding to examine the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, especially the imperativeness of for