Negligence in motor accident claims must be evaluated independently of criminal proceedings, and a defendant’s plea of guilt cannot solely determine liability in civil liability cases.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

The petitioner herein is the 2^nd respondent in O.P.(MV)No.1696/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The 1^st respondent herein is the claimant in the original petition, and respondents 2 and 3 herein are respondents 3 and 1, respectively, in the said original petition. The original petition was instituted by the 1^st respondent claiming compensation for the damage caused to the High Court vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07-BG-3165 (Innova), which was involved in a road traffic accident. In this OP(MAC), the petitioner challenges Exts. P7 and P8 orders of the Tribunal, by which Exts. P3 and P4 interlocutory applications were dismissed.

2. The accident is alleged to have occurred on 09.02.2013 at about 6.00 a.m. at Chembukkavu Junction, near KSFE Office, Ramanilayam, Thrissur. According to the claimant, while the Innova car, used as a Judges’ tour vehicle and proceeding from Ernakulam to Kannur, reached the said spot, a Toyota Corolla bearing registration No. TN-10-V-1786, owned by the petitioner and driven by the 3rd respondent, emerged from a side road at high speed and collided with the front portion of the Innova, causing damage to the bumper, bonnet, radiator, condenser, headlight assembly grill, name board, flag post and engine hood. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the 3rd respondent was travelling from Cheroor towards Ernakulam and, while crossing the road, the High Court vehicle, which was being driven rashly and at excessive speed from Ernakulam towards Kannur, collided with the rear portion of the petitioner’s vehicle. It is further asserted that the police authorities had informed the respondents that no case was registered against the 3rd respondent.

3. While the claim petition was pending, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 I.A. No.1/2023 seeking to summon the Scientific Assistant who conducted the sample paint comparison test, along with the report prepared in connection with the criminal proceedings, and Ext. P4 I.A. No.2/2023 seeking acceptance of the witness list, including the said expert and the 3^rd respondent. The claimant opposed the said applications by filing Exts. P5 and P6 objections, contending that there was no bonafides in the request and that the forensic report was unnecessary for adjudication of the claim.

4. The Tribunal, by Exts. P7 and P8 orders dated 07.09.2023, dismissed the applications on the sole ground that the 3^rd respondent driver had been convicted by the criminal court on the basis of a plea of guilt. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that findings in criminal proceedings cannot be treated as determinative of negligence in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act . It is contended that the plea of guilt by the driver does not preclude the petitioner from disputing negligence before the Tribunal and adducing evidence to disprove the police version, particularly when the petitioner himself had no opportunity to contest the criminal charge. By rejecting the applications, the Tribunal effectively foreclosed the petitioner’s right to adduce relevant evidence, thereby resulting in a denial of a fair opportunity and causing serious prejudice.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others [2011 (3) KHC 595] and National Insurance Co. Ltd., North Paravur v. Sajeev and Others [2018 (1) KHC 795] to