Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SREEVAN – Respondent
MACA 2343 2012
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accidents - MV Act Sections List - The court affirmed the tribunal's findings of negligence against the driver of the car involved in the accident, noting that insufficient evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of negligence established by the charge sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a motor vehicle accident involving two motorcycles and a car, resulting in the death of one rider and injuries to two others. The petitioners claimed that the car's driver was negligent, leading to the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the tribunal's finding of negligence against the car driver, stating that the evidence presented sufficiently supported the claimants' version, despite the insurance company's challenges.
Issues: The main issues were whether the driver of the car was negligent and whether the involvement of the car in the accident was adequately proven.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the charge sheet and corroborative evidence were sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the car driver, and the burden of proof lay with the insurance company to disprove this.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed and no enhancement of compensation was deemed necessary.
JUDGMENT
[ MACA.1895/2012, CO.101/2015 IN MACA.1822/2012, MACA.1822/2012, MACA.2343/2012 ]
Dated this the 19th day of March 2021 These appeals are connected and therefore I am disposing these three appeals and cross objection by a common judgment.
MACA No.1822/2012 is against the award in O.P.(MV)
No.2128/2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, and it is filed by the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased-Antony who died in a motor vehicle accident. The other two appeals are filed by the 3rd respondent in O.P.(MV) No. 1520/2005 and 1457/2005, in which the petitioner/claimants are injured in the same accident. The Tribunal considered all the claim petition together and passed a common order. Therefore, I am disposing these appeals also by a common judgment. As I said earlier, all these appeals are filed by the 3rd respondent in the above three claim petition. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal)
2. The short facts are like this:- On 22.04.2005 at
4.30 p.m. the deceased in O.P.(MV)No.2128/2005 was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/AH-2425 through Aluva- Munnar road from west to east direction. During that time the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.1520/2005 was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AW-8376 with the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1457/2005 on pillion seat along the road from the opposite direction i.e., from east to west. At that time the second respondent was driving the offending Maruthi Zen car KEK- 7874 in front of the motor cycle of petitioner in O.P. (MV)No.1520/2005 in the same direction. When the deceased arrived with motor cycle bearing Reg No.KL-01/AH – 2425 at south Vazhakulam Keenpadi, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car KEK – 7874 by the 2nd respondent, it hit against the motor cycle of the deceased and the deceased lost control and his motor cycle hit at the motor cycle of the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.1520/2005 and they fell on the road. The deceased also fell on the road and sustained serious head injuries. The petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1457/2005 and O.P. (MV) No.1520/2005 were taken into Carmel hospital, Aluva and they were admitted there as inpatient. The deceased in O.P(MV) No.2128/2005 was taken to Karothukuzhi Hospital, Aluva and he was given first aid from the hospital and then the deceased was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. On 23.04.2005 at 1.40 a.m., he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car KEK-7874 by the second respondent. The first respondent is the owner of the car and third respondent is the insurer. In O.P. (MV)No.2128/2005 the fourth respondent is the owner cum insured cum rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AW- 8376. The said motor cycle was insured with fifth respondent. The sixth respondent is the insurer of motor cycle KL-01/AH- 2425 ridden by the deceased in that case. According to the petitioners, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
3. As I said earlier all the three cases were tired together. Exts. A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the petitioners. PW1 to PW3 were examined on the side of the petitioners. Exts. X1 and X1(a) is also marked. After going through the evidence and documents the Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent the driver of the car is negligent and therefore respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation and compensation amount was also fixed.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent filed these three separate appeals challenging the awards in the three claim petitions.
5. In M.A.C.A. No. 1822/2012, the cross objection is also filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
