The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sagira and Others (Respondents 2 and 3 Are Minors and Rep. By Their Mother Ist Respondent)

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

These appeals are directed against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in OP(MV) Nos.631/05 and 1152/05. The accident was on 09/03/05. The deceased, of whom the claimants are the legal heirs, was riding his motorcycle. The vehicle allegedly hit a pedestrian who is the claimant in OP(MV).1152/05 as the vehicle was hit down by a car insured with the appellant Insurance Company. In this appeal the appellant would contend that though in the FIR there was no mention about the involvement of the car, the learned Tribunal after finding negligence on the part of the car driver directed the appellant Insurance Company to satisfy the award. According to the appellant, the learned Tribunal did not consider the contention of the appellant that the car was not involved in the accident as proved by the FIR and AMVI Report. Thus they have come up in appeal.

We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the claimants. We have also perused the impugned common award.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant mainly relied on Ext.A1 which is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.151/05 of Ottapalam Police Station. The accident was at 8.00 p.m on 09/03/05 and FIR was lodged at 8.00 a.m. on the next day. F.I.statement was given by a pedestrian who had occasion to see the deceased as well as the injured lying on the side of the road. It is true that there was no whisper regarding involvement of a car in Ext.A1. However, it is relevant to note that as per Ext.A4, the first respondent in the claim petition who was the driver of the car was charge sheeted by the police after a detailed investigation. The averment in Ext.A4 is that the car was being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner from Muthuthala to Pattambi and hit the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. The learned Tribunal in the absence of any contra evidence relied on Ext.A4 charge sheet and found that the accident had occurred as alleged in the claim petition. It was argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that in AMVI report prepared on 26/03/05 as well as in the scene mahazar there is no whisper regarding the involvement of a car. But the learned counsel for the respondent claimant relying on the body mahazar of the car prepared by the police after the incident would submit that details of damage were noted in the body mahazar of the car. The mere fact that there is no whisper regarding the involvement of the car in any of the documents referred to by the learned senior counsel for the appellant will not take us to the conclusion that the car insured with the appellant Insurance Company was not involved in the accident. As rightly found by the learned Tribunal, in the absence of any contra evidence Ext.A4 police charge can be relied on for finding that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. On a consideration of the total facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned awards do not call for an interference by this Court as the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective. We do not propose to reverse the finding on the question of negligence. Hence, we dismiss the appeals. No costs.