Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
Santha Kumari Amma W/o Thankappan Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Thara T. Pillai - Respondent
M.A.C.A. Nos. 310, 1430 of 2024, I.A. No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 04-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. SRI. T.K.KOSHY SMT. V.V.RISANI SRI. ANIL GEORGE
For the Respondent: R2 BY SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
IMPORTANT POINT
The production of a police charge sheet serves as prima facie evidence of negligence, and the burden of proof lies on the disputing party to provide contrary evidence.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim petitioners appeal against the award dated 05.10.2023 regarding compensation for the death of Thankappan Pillai in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent based on witness testimonies and the charge sheet. (Paras 2 , 4 , 10 , 14 )
(B) Evidence - The production of a police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence unless challenged by oral evidence. The Tribunal must consider all evidence presented before it. (Paras 10 , 14 )
(C) Compensation - The Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and the application of the multiplier for calculating compensation were contested. The court found merit in the claimants' argument for a higher notional income based on the deceased's standard of living. (Paras 21 , 32 )
(D) Legal Principles - The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof in negligence cases is on the party disputing the charge sheet, and the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities. (Paras 14 , 34 ) (E)
Result: The appeal was partly allowed, granting additional compensation of Rs.8,23,644/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. (Paras 36 )
JUDGMENT :
The above appeals are filed by the claim petitioners and the 5th respondent insurance company against the award dated 05.10.2023 in O.P.(MV) No. 1433 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta.
2. The claim petitioners and the 4th respondent are the legal representatives of the deceased Thankappan Pillai, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on 10.07.2010, while the deceased was driving a car, lorry driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the car and the deceased, who sustained serious injuries, succumbed to his injuries while on the way to hospital.
3. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the petitioners and from the side of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent.
4. Heard Sri.T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners, Sri. George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the insurance company and Sri. Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in M.A.C.A No. 1430 of 2024.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that the Tribunal relied on Exhibit A5, further investigation report, to record a finding of negligence against the 2nd respondent in the impugned award. It is brought to my notice that originally, the claim petition was dismissed as per award dated 12.02.2019 and as per the judgment in M.A.C.A No. 547 of 2020 of this Court, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal and after the remand, PWs 4 to 6 were examined from the side of the claim petitioners and without considering their evidence, the Tribunal accepted Exhibit A5 charge sheet as prima facie evidence of negligence against the driver of the lorry.
6. It is argued that after registering Exhibit A1 FIR and conducting investigation, the police filed Exhibit B3 refer report on 16.11.2010 and subsequently after further investigation, the police filed Exhibit A5 charge sheet and the Tribunal has not considered the findings of the Investigating Officer in Exhibits B1 and B2, portions of the case diary marked in evidence.
7. Admittedly, after the remand, the petitioners examined PWs 4 and 5 to prove the occurrence and negligence against the 2nd respondent, driver of the lorry.
8. The evidence of PW4 shows that he witnessed the occurrence and at the time of occurrence, he was riding a motorcycle along with his friend Nishanth as pillion rider and the car driven by the deceased was moving ahead of his motorcycle. According to PW4, the offending lorry which came from the opposite side was driven in over-speed and in a negligent manner and caused to hit on the front side of the maruti car. The evidence of PW4 shows that the 2nd respondent was the driver of the lorry and he also reiterated that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
9. PW5 is another occurrence witness. According to PW5, at the time of occurrence, he was standing in a bus waiting shed near the place of occurrence. His evidence shows that the lorry which came from the opposite side was driven in over-speed and in a negligent manner and it caused to hit the front side of the maruti car. PW5 also deposed that the accident occurred only because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
10. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others, 2011(3) KHC 595, this Court held that as a general rule, production of the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act. In the said decision, it was also held that if any one of the parities do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence and if oral evidence is adduced by an
