IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the accident was due to the negligence of the lorry driver and recalibrated the compensation based on the deceased's notional income and loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

(C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.)

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1081 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents, widow and children of deceased Kunhikoya, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.08.2007. According to the petitioners, on 10.08.2007, at about 10.30 p.m, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a lorry driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, and as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner, and3^rd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. The 4^th respondent is the rider, 5^th respondent is the owner and the 6^th respondent is the insurer of the motorcycle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.6,37,000/-.

4. In the written statement filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 4^th respondent.

5. On the other hand, in the written statement filed by the 6^th respondent, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent.

6. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs1 to 3, Exts.A1 to A5, B1 and B2. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 4^th respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,500/- against the 5^th respondent, on the ground that the policy does not cover a pillion rider. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.

7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

i) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent or the 4^th respondent.

ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

8. Heard Sri. P.K. Mohamed Jameel, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Sri. A.R. George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent, Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, and Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent argued that as per Ext.B1 charge sheet, the police after investigation found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 4^th respondent.

10. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, it is revealed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent. He has also relied upon Annexures R4(b) and R4(c), depositions of PWs 2 and 3 in CC No. 337/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna as well as the judgment dated 01.12.2023 in CC No.760/2016, acquitting the 4^th accused.

11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that the judgment of the criminal court is not binding on this Court.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in Ajeesh v. Vibitha Varghese (2024 (6) KHC 115), and would argue that in a case where the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant relied on a final report in criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal, the decision of the criminal court become relevant.In paragraph 12, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:

“12. It is true that the decision of the criminal court does not have a bearing on the findings rendered by the Tribunal. But the said principles apply only in cases where the acquittal in criminal cases is pressed into service for avoiding the liability of tort. It is now settled that the degree of proof requi