A Tribunal's assessment of negligence in motor accident claims must be independent of criminal court judgments and supported by proper evaluation of evidence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioner/claimant in O.P.(M.V.)

No.1073/2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The above claim petition was filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation.

2. The short facts are like this :

The appellant was the driver of a Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KL 01 R-3580. He was driving his vehicle through the Palode-Nedumangad public road and when the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, a jeep bearing registration No. KBT-5579 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the Maruti Omni and the petitioner sustained serious injuries including fracture. The 1st respondent is the Director, Central Groundwater Board, Kerala Region and he is arrayed in his capacity as the owner of the jeep bearing registration No.KBT-5579. Respondents 2 and 3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.1073/2002 are the owner and insurer of the Maruti Omni bearing registration No. KL-01 R 3580.

3. O.P.(M.V.) No.1073/2002 and O.P.(M.V.) No.1935/2002 are disposed of by the Tribunal by a common award. O.P.(M.V.)

No.1935/2002 is filed by the Union of India and Central Groundwater Board claiming compensation for the damage sustained to the jeep owned by them.

4. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the petitioner. One witness was examined on the side of the petitioner. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal passed an award in O.P.(M.V.) No.1073/2002 allowing the petitioner to realise a sum of Rs.32,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the 1st respondent. The Tribunal found that the accident happened as a result of the negligence on the side of the driver of the Department jeep and also the petitioner herein and therefore, according to the Tribunal, there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also. Aggrieved by the above award, the petitioner filed this MACA No.1455/2010.

5. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.

6. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered Ext.A11 judgment of the Appellate Court in Crl.Appeal No.535/2005, in which the Appellate Court found that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, which resulted in the accident. The counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not independently considered the question regarding the negligence and simply relied the conviction order passed by the trial court in which the petitioner was convicted. The counsel submitted that he is challenging the quantum of compensation also.

7. The counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal after considering the entire facts, passed the impugned award and there is nothing to interfere with the same. The counsel for the 1st respondent also supported the impugned award and conceded that the 1st respondent has not challenged the award in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1935/2002. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the accused in crime No.289/2001 of Palode Police Station, which was registered in connection with the accident happened in this case, in which he also sustained injuries. He was the driver of the Maruti Van. Based on the above FIR registered by the Palode police, a final report was filed before the court in which the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Sec.279 of the IPC with a default sentence. The petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Sec.337 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal was considered by the Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III) Thiruvananthapuram. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal after setting aside the conviction and sentence. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :