The insurer's liability for compensation in motor accident claims is upheld when negligence is proven, and failure to disprove liability results in rejection of appeals.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.262 of 2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, challenging the liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are respondents

1 & 2 and the claimant respectively before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 06.06.2007, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2V/3228 along the Adoor-Pathanapuram public road, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL- 31/6073 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 & RW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7, B1, X1 & X2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹57,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging the liability to pay compensation.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the third respondent/claimant.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurer had specifically raised a contention in their written statement that the claimant sustained injuries as a result of a fall from the motorcycle when a dog crossed the road in front of the motorcycle and there was no involvement of the lorry, which was insured with the insurer. In order to substantiate the above contention, the learned Standing Counsel relied on Ext.A5 wound certificate, wherein it was stated that the accident occurred due to fall from the motorcycle. The learned Standing Counsel also relied on the evidence of RW1/doctor, who issued Ext.A5 wound certificate and who deposed that at the time of the admission, it was stated that the accident occurred due to fall from the motorcycle.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant, however, submitted that at the time of admission after the accident, somebody who was not aware of the accident has given information to the hospital; and actually, the accident occurred due to the hit by the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-31/6073; and though the accident occurred on 06.06.2007, the First Information Statement was given to the police authorities immediately on 07.06.2007; and Ext.A6 charge sheet was registered against the driver of the lorry. It is also submitted that if the insurer had any doubt regarding Ext.A6 charge sheet drawn against the driver of the lorry, they ought to have adduced evidence to prove the same, however, no evidence was adduced by them apart from examining RW1/doctor. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the tribunal is right in finding that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarding compensation.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. On a perusal of Ext.A5 wound certificate, it is seen that in Column No.9, the alleged cause of accident is stated as, “ബ(cid:2)ക(cid:4)ല സഞര(cid:4)കമ(cid:12)(cid:13)ള പട(cid:4) കറക(cid:20) ച(cid:13)ട(cid:4)യത(cid:4)ല ബ(cid:2)ക(cid:4)ല ന(cid:4)ന(cid:27) വ(cid:29)ണത(cid:4)ല കവച ". After the acc