Insurer is not liable for uninsured vehicle involved in an accident, despite findings of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.144/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 09/05/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 24/03/2016 at about 09:00 p.m., while he was walking through Kottappalla – Kodiyamkunnu public road and when reached near Kottappalla grandhshala, jeep bearing registration no.KL-07/J- 3220 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner in great speed knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The second respondent-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.

4. The first respondent-driver filed written statement denying negligence on his part.

5. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, income, injuries, treatment underwent, expenses met for the treatment and disability were denied.

6. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.2,75,640/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent-insurer has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

9. Heard both sides.

10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the actual vehicle involved in the incident is jeep bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611 as mentioned in the private complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate concerned. However, in Ext.A7 final report, the vehicle number has been changed fraudulently because the vehicle stated in the complaint did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. The vehicle subsequently added has a valid insurance policy and hence to get the insurance amount, the vehicle number has been changed and a false final report filed. As the vehicle actually involved is not insured with the third respondent-insurer, the insurer cannot be held liable for the amount and hence the Tribunal went wrong in directing the insurer to deposit the amount. Per contra, it was quite persuasively submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that it is well settled that the final report filed by the police in the crime is prima facie proof of negligence. In the case on hand, the police after investigation filed Ext.A7 final report which proves the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident. To prove Ext.A7, the claim petitioner also examined the investigating officer, namely, PW1. Therefore, the claim petitioner has discharged his burden. If the third respondent/insurer had any grievance/complaint against Ext.A7 final report, they ought to have adduced evidence to disprove the same. Having n