Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Abdul Rehim, J:

The above appeal picturises a splendid example wherein the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has imported its own pre-conceived notions and presumptions in discarding the evidence on record and in rejecting the claim instituted by a helpless lady at the age of 40 years, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The appellant herein is the claimant in OP (MV) No.1069/2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. She approached the Tribunal seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries sustained to her in a motor vehicle accident, which allegedly occurred at 11.30 a.m. on 26-07-2003 near L.P. School, Anoopara at Alayilmukku-Avanavancherry Public Road. The allegation in the claim petition is that, while  walking along the side of the above said road she was knocked down by a scooter bearing Registration No.KL 01 Q 2833 driven by the 2nd respondent at a rash and negligent manner at excessive speed. The claim was resisted by the 3rd respondent by filing written statement wherein a contention was taken that no accident of the description as mentioned in the claim had never taken place indeed. According to the 3rd respondent the claimant is seen to have got injured in some other incident and she has approached the Tribunal with a false claim to extract money from the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. In support of such contention it was pointed out that there occurred unreasonable delay of 297 days in reporting the occurrence to the police and the police had registered the case only on the basis of a private complaint filed by the claimant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, which was forwarded by that court to the Attingal Police, under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also contended that the respondents 1 & 2 are colluding with the  claimant in filing the application seeking compensation.

4. For the purpose of brevity, we are not venturing to re-produce the discussions made by the Tribunal on  evaluating the evidence on record. However, we are persuaded to observe that, there is total perversity in properly evaluating the evidence and in arriving at any just and proper findings based on the evidence. We are at an obligation to conduct a re-evaluation of the entire evidence adduced by the appellant. Exhibit A1 to A4 are documents pertaining to the police case registered with respect to the accident. Exhibit A4 is the copy of the wound certificate issued from Attingal Multi-specialty Hospital. It would indicate that on 26-07-2003 the petitioner was brought to the said hospital at 12 noon with a history and alleged cause of the injury as sustained by hit of a Scooter at 11.30 a.m. while walking through the road at Anoopara. The injuries noted therein is pain and restricted movement of right hand and deformity. In the wound certificate it is noted that on examination, fracture of humerus was detected. Exhibit A4 contains an endorsement that the patient was referred to the Medical College Hospital at request, on 28-07-2003. Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R registered with  respect to the accident. The case was registered only on 21- 05-2004 based on the complaint forwarded from the Magistrate Court. A copy of the complaint is also appended along with the F.I.R. In the said complaint the claimant had stated that, since she was undergoing treatment at the hospital she could not report the accident to the police at the proper time. When she made enquiries at the Attingal Police, after about one month, it was realized that no case was registered with respect to the accident. Since the police had expressed their inability to register a case because of the delay, she is approaching the Magistrate Court with the private complaint. There is evidence to the effect that, based on Ext.A1 F.I.R the police had investigated the case and chargesheeted the 2nd respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 & 338 of IPC. Exhibit A3 is the certified copy of the chargesheet. Exhibit A5 O.P. Ticket issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram which would reveal that she was consulted at that centre on 28-07-2003, as a case referred  from the Attingal Multi-speciality Hospital with the history of an RTA on 26-07-2003. There also, the diagnosis noted is fracture mid shaft of right humerus. Exhibit A6 is another OP Card of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram dated 04-08-2003 in which again the endorsement is to the effect that it is a referred case from Attingal Multi-speciality Hospital, with history of RTA and there is injury of fracture mid shaft right humerus. Exhibit A7 series are the O.P. Tickets of General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram dated 15-08-2003, 12-11-2003 and 11-02-2004, evidencing continued treatment for the injury of fracture humerus right mid shaft. Exhibit A8 series are two discharge cards issued from the Government General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 15-11-2003 and 02-04-2006. The first card would indicate that open reduction and internal fixation was done along with bone grafting on the right humerus of the claimant. The second discharge card would indicate that she was admitted on 28-03-2006 for removal of implants, which was done on  31-03-2006 under general anesthesia. Exhibit A9 is yet another O.P. Ticket issued from the Government Hospital, Valiyakunnu, Attingal. Exhibit A10 & A11 series are clinical test reports with respect to the treatments undertaken by the claimants at various hospitals. Exhibit A12 series is the medical bills evidencing the expenses incurred by her for the treatment, issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on a later stage. Exhibit A14 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedics, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, certifying that on examination of the appellant on 01-02-2012, she had pain over right shoulder, angulation deformity of right humerus which is posterior angulation, and pain on right elbow. It is mentioned that she had difficulty of abduction of right shoulder only to 900 and difficulty to rotate right upper limb along with shortening of the right humerus with 3.5 c.m., apart from the other difficulties mentioned therein. The certificate would indicate that the extent of permanent disability suffered by  the claimant was assessed at 15% as per the Mc-Bride's scale.

5. The above documents would clearly indicate that the claimant sustained injury on the alleged date of the accident and she was immediately taken to the Hospital, with an alleged history of the accident and thereafter she continued treatment at various hospitals and that the injuries had resulted in causing partial permanent disability to her.

6. Now the question to be analysed is as to whether the claimant was successful in proving the accident and negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in causing the accident. From the documents produced it is evident that the claimant had approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal with a private complaint, when it was revealed that the police has not registered a case. Evidently the police was compelled to register a case based on the complaint forwarded from the Magistrate Court and on investigation the police found that the allegations are  true and therefore chargesheeted the 2nd respondent finding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the 2nd respondent at the relevant time of the accident. Apart from disputing correctness of the accident, the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps to disprove the evidence adduced by the claimant. The Tribunal ought to have considered the medical evidence adduced, coupled with the records relating to the criminal case, in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable conclusion. Instead, the Tribunal had imagined so many things and imported his own perceptions and notions into the Award and rejected the claim based on the findings as quoted above. Therefore we are inclined to hold that the dismissal of the claim petition was totally illegal, erroneous and incorrect. From the evidence appreciated as above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant/claimant sustained injuries as mentioned above due to the accident which occurred on 26-07-2003 when she was knocked down by the Scooter driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and  negligent manner. Consequently we hold that the respondents 1 & 2 who are the registered owner and driver of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the vehicle is liable to compensate the appellant/claimant, by indemnifying the owner-insured.