The court upheld the tribunal's dismissal of the claim as the evidence did not establish negligence on part of the respondent.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.959 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, against the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 11.05.2003, while the claimant was travelling in a Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KL-01-H-7837 which was driven by her husband, an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.01-Q-9758 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the right side of the body of the car and thus the she sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/insurer filed a written statement contending that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the owner, driver and insurer of the car were not made a party. It is also contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the car driver. Before the tribunal, Pws1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15, Exts.B1 and B2 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw in causing the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car, who was her husband, in which she was travelling as a passenger. Though a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the car, the evidence of PW2, an occurrence witness, clearly stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the driver of the car had pleaded guilty. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Menon P.S. v. Registrar General, High Court of Kerala [2026 KHC Online 128] wherein it was held that findings in criminal proceedings, even those based on a plea of guilt, are not conclusive or binding on the Claims Tribunal. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of PW2 also supported the case of the claimant/appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the auto-rickshaw and that the tribunal ought to have considered the better evidence adduced by the appellant in this case.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that PW2 is not a charge-sheet witness. It was further submitted that the driver of the car had not challenged the charge sheet drawn against him, nor had he examined the investigating officer to prove that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. According to the learned standing counsel for the insurance company, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim put forward by the claimant for want of evidence.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

8. On a perusal of the award as well as the documents produced, it is seen that the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the car, who is the husband of the claimant. The appellant is the owner of the car. In the claim petition as well as in the appeal, it is the specific case of the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Since the claimant was a