Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
K.K.SAIDALAVI – Appellant
Versus
P.V.MOHAMMED – Respondent
MACA NO. 2618 OF 2012 | OP(MV) NO.2522 OF 2003
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.V.RASHMI
For the Respondents: Standing Counsel for the insurance company
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish negligence, which was not met in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Negligence - Claim for compensation - The claimant alleged that the bus hit his motorcycle causing serious injuries; however, evidence including AMVI reports indicated otherwise, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition. (Paras 2, 6, 8, 11)
(B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish negligence, supported by the evidence presented, including AMVI reports and medical documents. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sought compensation after being injured in an accident allegedly caused by a bus, but the tribunal found insufficient evidence of negligence on the bus driver's part.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not prove negligence, supported by conflicting evidence and reports, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant could establish the bus driver's negligence in causing the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not support the claimant's version of events, and the tribunal provided satisfactory reasons for dismissing the original petition.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant alleges bus negligence in motorcycle accident. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding evidence of negligence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court analyzes evidence and finds claimant's version unproven. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 4. court concludes on the burden of proof and tribunal's reasoning. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.2522 of
2003 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 03.07.2003 at about 12.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no. KL-10-K-3208, a bus bearing registration no. KL-10-Q-144 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him from behind causing serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.
3. The 1st respondent was the R.C. owner/insured and the
2nd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The 2nd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but denying negligence alleged against the bus driver. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7, Exts.B1 and B2, Ext.X1 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the original petition. Challenging the dismissal of the original petition, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal while dismissing the original petition, ignored Ext.A2 final report and Ext.A3 FIR, and held that the claimant had failed to establish negligence on the part of the bus driver. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, apart from the contention raised by the insurer in the written statement denying negligence on the part of the bus driver, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. It is further submitted that the appellant had sustained severe injury and as per Ext.C1, the Medical Board has assessed his percentage of disability as 35%. The dismissal of the claim petition has put the appellant/claimant in a great loss and hardship and therefore, a plea has been made for one more opportunity to adduce evidence.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company on the other hand contended that though Ext.A2 final report, Ext.A3 FIR and Ext.A4 scene mahazar are in favour of the claimant, the AMVI report produced as Exts.B1 and B2 clearly evidences the damages sustained to the motorcycle as well as the bus. The learned counsel further submitted that it is a false story framed by the claimant that the bus hit the motorcycle in order to claim compensation from the insurer. Moreover, the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle were not made parties in the original petition. The learned counsel further contended that the dismissal of the Original Petition by the tribunal does not warrant any interference.
7. I have considered the contentions raised by both sides. 8. Exts.A2, A3 and A4 are the final report, FIR and Scene Mahazar. Ext.A2 final report establishes that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. As per the charge sheet, the accident is narrated that the driver of the bus in a rash and negligent manner hit at the back side of the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle sustained serious injuries. On a perusal of Exts.B1 AMVI report, the damage sustained in respect of the motorcycle reads as follows :-
“front mud guard broken, headlight assy broken, H/L wires broken and left side indicator light broken.”
9. Ext.B2 AMVI report regarding the details of the damage sustained in respect of the bus reads as follows :-
“Back registration number plate rear side pressed to inside and rear body bottom side, centre pressed inside.”
10. In Exts.B1 and B2, it is seen that the damages susta
