IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1181 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1054/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P ---------------------------------- JOHNSON, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, OLAMATTAM KARA, MARIYIL KALUNKU BHAGAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P --------------- 1. POLACHAN, S/O.AUGUSTHY, PARAPPURATHU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ANKAMALI. 2. P.P.GOPAKUMAR, PAZHAYAVEETTIL HOUSE, VEGNALLOOR, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO,LTD., THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 7/11/1999. According to him, he was the pillion rider in a motor cycle owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. That motor cycle,according to him, was being driven by the first respondent at the time of the accident. On account of the negligence on the part of the first respondent, the motor cycle jumped into a gutter. The claimant/appellant fell from the motor cycle and suffered injuries. He was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital by name Excelsior Hospital. From there, he was immediately referred to the Medical Trust Hospital. He underwent treatment as an inpatient for a period of nine days, that is 7/11/1999 to 16/11/1999. He had suffered multiple injuries including multiple fractures. There was fracture of the right clavicle. There was undisplaced fracture of M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 2 the maxilla. There was fracture of the frontal bone. 2. According to the appellant/claimant, he was unconscious when he was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital. He was admitted in the ICU. After two days when he was discharged from the ICU, his statement was recorded by the police. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the rider and the owner of the motor cycle did not enter appearance. The Insurance Company accepted that there was a comprehensive policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle. They admitted an accident. They admitted that the claimant had suffered injuries in such accident. But according to them, the accident did not take place in the manner alleged by the claimant in the petition. They relied on the first statement made to the Medical Officer at the Medical Trust Hospital that the alleged cause of injury was “Bike rider. Hit by a Maruti car today”. They also relied on the F.I.R. registered by the police which also suggested that it was a case of hit and run by a Maruti car. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 3 examined himself as PW1. He examined an eye witness as PW2. He relied on Exts.A1 to A9. Ext.A1 is the copy of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The police had accepted the case of the appellant about the nature of the accident. Final report, Ext.A1 was filed on 24/11/1999 alleging that the first respondent rider was culpably negligent and such negligence was the cause of the accident. Ext.A2 is the copy of the report of the A.M.V.I. which shows that the motor cycle did have damage on it to confirm the accident. Ext.A3 is the scene mahazar prepared by the police. Ext.A4 is the copy of the wound certificate-cum-discharge certificate issued by the Medical Trust Hospital. Ext.A5 is the F.I.R. registered by the police. Ext.A6 is the copy of the statement given by the appellant to the police officer when he was examined in the course of investigation on 9/11/1999 after he was discharged from the ICU. Ext.A7 is the discharge summary. Exts.A8 and A9 are bills for medical expenses/transportation charges which suggest that a total amount of Rs.10,861/- was incurred in connection with the treatment. No other evidence was adduced by either side. M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 4 5. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the materials are not sufficient to enter a safe finding that the accident had taken place in the manner alleged by the claimant. Accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award dismissing the claim. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the insurance company have advanced detailed arguments. The crucial question that falls for consideration is whether the accident had taken place in the manner alleged by the appellant/claimant. If, on that point, finding is in favour of the appellant, we will have to further consider the quantum of compensation that is liable to be paid. 7. According to the claimant, the accident had taken place when the 1st respondent was riding the scooter and the claimant was travelling as pillion rider. The oral evidence of PW1/claimant and PW2, an eye witness support this version of the claimant. The final report Ext.A1, submitted by the police after due investigation also supports the version of PWs 1 and 2. M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 5 It will be apposite straight away to note that the accident is admitted. The insured vehicle was admittedly involved in the accident. The appellant/claimant had admittedly suffered injuries in that accident. In these circumstances, Ext.A2 report of the A.M.V.I and Ext.A3 scene mahazer may not be of crucial significance. It is relevant straight away to note that PW2, an alleged eye witness to the occurrence, has been cited as an eye witness by the police in Ext.A1 charge sheet. 8. We must, first of all, note that the claimant had become unconscious after the accident. Atleast when he was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital, he was only semi-conscious. The discharge summary Ext.A7 clearly shows that he was semi- conscious and drowsy. It is noted that there was no history of loss of consciousness. It is also noted that there was history of 'irrelevant talk'. 9. It appears to be clear now that from the spot of the accident, the appellant was taken to another local hospital - Excelsior hospital. It was from there, he was rushed to the Medical Trust Hospital. No documents are made available from the said first hospital. The appellant has not chosen to produce M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 6 any documents from that hospital. The police, in the course of investigation, do not appear to have ascertained whether any documents are available from that hospital. The insurance company, which conducted investigations initially and later as per the directions of an earlier Division Bench which dealt with this case also did not make efforts to ascertain the first version, if any, from such hospital. It appears to be evident that the injured was rushed to that hospital and it was from there that he was later removed to the Medical Trust Hospital. What we intend to note is that it was not a case of immediate removal of the appellant from the scene of the crime to the Medical Trust Hospital. 10. We now come to the wound certificate which contains the earliest version about the accident. Ext.A4 is the wound certificate. Undoubtedly, the version therein is against the present version of the claimant. The version to the doctor about the alleged cause is “bike rider hit by a Maruti car today at 2 p.m.”. That version is given at 4.20 p.m. It is recorded in Ext.A4 that on examination, the claimant was found to be unconscious. Whatever be the version in Ext.A4, the claimant/appellant is M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 7 definitely not the one who gave that version to the doctor. The alleged incongruity in his present version and the version of the doctor looses significance when we see that the first version in Ext.A4 could not have been given by the appellant/claimant. Who could have given the statement? This is the next question. It is stated that Michael, the brother of the appellant had brought him to the Medical Trust Hospital. Nobody has a case that Michael was an eye witness to the occurrence. Reasonable inferences ought to be drawn and it is easy to assume that Michael who was even allegedly not available at the scene must have joined his injured brother at the first hospital where the appellant was taken immediately after the accident. The argument that Michael, the brother, had no reason to give a false statement to the doctor is not of significance because Michael was not an eye witness and he had joined his injured brother at some point of time after the accident and before he was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital. The version, even if we assume that the version were given by Michael the brother of the appellant could not have been a version on the basis of the personal perception of Michael. Ext.A5 is the F.I.R. The F.I.R does not M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 8 contain anything more than what is contained in Ext.A4. On the basis of Ext.A4, intimation was given to the police. The police came to the hospital. The appellant/claimant was admitted in the I.C.U. His statement could not be recorded and hence the F.I.R was registered on the basis of the intimation received by the police. What we need to note is that Ext.A5 F.I.R does not take us any farther than the version in Ext.A4 wound certificate, the authorship of which statement we are unable to ascertain. The first version of an eye witness to the occurrence is available in Ext.A6 which is the copy of 161 statement given to the investigating officer by the claimant. That statement is seen given on 09/11/1999, the date on which the appellant/claimant was discharged from the I.C.U. The police continued investigation on the basis of Ext.A6 statement given by the claimant/appellant. They have traced PW2 who was an alleged eye witness to the occurrence. Ext.A1 final report shows that the police were able to trace one more eye witness to the occurrence who was cited as CW3 by the police. Ext.A1 final report is seen dated 24/11/1999. The accident had taken place on 07/11/1999 and on 24/11/1999 the final report was prepared. M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 9 The same had reached the learned Magistrate on 02/12/1999, it is seen from the endorsement in Ext.A1. 11. What we intend to note is that though in Ext.A4 wound certificate and also in Ext.A5 F.I.R, the version is of hit and run by a Maruti car, as early as on 09/11/1999 from the statement of the claimant the police had ascertained that it was not a case of hit and run and was a case of an accident which occurred when the 1st respondent was riding the motorcycle. It is not as though the police were groping in the dark for a long period of time unable to identify the Maruti car or its driver. On 09/11/1999, as soon as the claimant was discharged from the I.C.U, the police had gathered the information from him that it is a case of accident which occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/rider of the motorcycle. If, as a matter of fact, it was a case of hit and run by a Maruti car, we find no reason for the claimant at that stage (09/11/1999) to absolve the Maruti car driver and raise allegations against the 1st respondent. It is against ordinary human behaviour and natural human conduct to assume that on 09/11/1999 the injured claimant would have chosen to absolve the Maruti car driver and would have turned M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 10 to make a false allegation against the 1st respondent. It is also relevant to note that the final report has been prepared on 24/11/1999 and the same had been filed before court on 02/12/1999. What we intend to note is that allegations could not have been raised against the 1st respondent after the claimant and the police found it impossible to trace the Maruti car and its driver. 12. We cannot afford to ignore the fact that police, after due investigation, had come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was culpably negligent and had formally indicted the 1st respondent. Allegations were raised against him under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C in Ext.A1. The police is also part of the criminal justice delivery system. It is true that courts come across a number of instances where police officers/ investigating officers fall from the level of virtue expected of them. But, that by itself, is no reason to assume that all charge sheets would be incorrect or fraudulent. This aspect of the matter was adverted to by this Court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and others [2011(3) KLT 648]. Though courts and tribunals cannot be prisoners of the conclusions of M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 11 the police officers, such final reports filed after due investigation can certainly be held to be of relevance in the adjudication of factual disputes. 13. One question worries us. How is it that a different version found expression in Ext.A4? Under what circumstances could such a version creep into Ext.A4? Whoever be the author/person responsible for such a version, why was such a version given and what could have been the motive? These questions do vex us. No eye witness other than PWs 1 and 2 are traced by the police or the insurance company or the other respondents. The 1st respondent, if he were really responsible for the accident could certainly have entertained an intention to suppress his role in the incident and place the blame at the doors of someone else. The evidence of PW2 shows that the 1st respondent had also suffered some minor injuries. Of course, he had not gone to any doctor and we have no material to come to a positive conclusion that he had, as a matter of fact, suffered any injury in the accident. Oral evidence of PW2 is, of course, there. We cannot possibly come to a conclusion that the pillion rider alone could not have suffered injuries when the driver himself M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 12 has not suffered any injuries. That would be too over simplistic an approach to the disputed questions of fact. If the injured/claimant were unconscious and the first respondent wanted to avoid blame, it is quite possible that he could have instantaneously sold the version that the accident occurred on account of hit and run by another vehicle. That possibility, we are not able to rule out. In the nature of the evidence available in this case, though no one has advanced such a specific case, that possibility does worry us very much. 14. Basically we have the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 about the manner in which the accident took place. This version of PWs 1 and 2 is supported eminently by Ext.A6 statement given by the claimant to the investigating police officer on 09/11/1999. Ext.A1 final report filed by the police also supports the version of PWs 1 and 2. As against this, we have only the alleged cause of the accident narrated in Ext.A4 by an unidentified source. Between the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 supported by Exts.A1 and A6, and the authorless version in Ext.A4 we would certainly prefer to ignore the incongruent statement in Ext.A4. The possibility that the 1st respondent may have been interested in M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 13 giving a version exonerating himself from any involvement in the accident is a possible explanation for that incongruent version in Ext.A4. Ext.A5 being only a repetition of Ext.A4, that does not, in any way, carry things any farther than Ext.A4. 15. It is, in this context that the version of the 3rd respondent becomes relevant. The 3rd respondent had promptly engaged an investigating agency to ascertain the cause of the accident. A report dated 30/04/2000 is submitted to the insurance company by that investigator. The Bench which dealt with the matter earlier had, in the order dated 04/12/2008, commended adversely on the said investigation report. There is only one relevant line in the entire report and that says “the charge sheet seems to be tampered”. In what manner it is tampered and how that conclusion is reached is not mentioned in that report at all. Evidently, that observation is made solely on the strength of Exts.A4 and A5 without any pointed investigation. 16. The Bench, by order dated 04/12/2008, expressed its extreme dissatisfaction with the said investigation report dated 30/04/2000. Thereupon the insurance company engaged another agency who submitted the report dated 24/6/2009. In that also, M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 14 we note that no further investigation worth the name was conducted by the said investigator also. The question whether the 1st respondent had suffered any injury is not seen ascertained in such report dated 24/6/2009. The alleged Maruti car which was involved in the accident was not identified also. Even a cursory attempt is not made to ascertain the details from the first hospital where the injured was taken. To sum up, the investigation report dated 30/04/2000 and the subsequent investigation report dated 24/6/2009 after the earlier Bench passed the order dated 04/12/2008 do not both inspire confidence at all. It is very evident that the written statement of the insurance company as also both the investigation reports view the version of the claimant/appellant with suspicion/reservation solely on the basis of the first statement made to the Medical Officer by an unknown person. Crucial significance, as stated earlier, cannot be attached to the said version in Ext.A4 in the totality of circumstances. 17. The appellant/claimant was present at the scene of the crime. The insured vehicle was involved in the accident. The appellant/claimant had suffered fairly serious injuries also. His M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 15 version that he had suffered the injuries in the manner alleged by him is supported by his oral evidence as PW1. It is corroborated by his earlier version dated 09/11/1999 in Ext.A6. The evidence of PW2, who was traced by the investigating police officer also supports the version of the claimant. It is supported by the conclusion of the investigating officer in Ext.A1 final report submitted after investigation. The only circumstance against all these is the first version given to the doctor in Ext.A4 wound certificate. As noted by us earlier, there is no assurance that the said version is correct. The possibility of the 1st respondent who took the claimant to the hospital to avoid blame for himself having advanced such a version to believe cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, we prefer to accept and act upon the version of the claimant. If we should err inevitably, in a situation like this, we would certainly like to err in favour of the victim of an accident who is shown to have suffered serious injuries. In this view of the matter, we disagree with the conclusions of the tribunal and hold that the version of the appellant can be accepted. M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 16 18. It has to be taken note of that it is not a case where the indictee (first respondent) has no stakes involved. It is unlikely that the 1st respondent would have agreed to subject himself to a prosecution as the prosecution was under Section 338 I.P.C also. Neither side has chosen to place before us the details about the fate of Ext.A1 prosecution. We intend only to note that no person in his senses would have chosen to expose himself to a prosecution under Section 338 I.P.C only to oblige the appellant/claimant. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it will certainly be safer to accept the version of the appellant/claimant about the accident. 19. We now come to the liability to compensate the appellant. The 1st respondent being the rider and 2nd respondent being the owner are undoubtedly liable to compensate the victim if the accident is taken place on account of the negligence of the respondents. The 3rd respondent/insurance company admits and accepts that the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive policy of insurance and their liability to pay amounts if, as a matter of fact, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the victim/claimant. M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 17 20. We now come to the quantum of compensation payable. The materials available clearly suggest that serious injuries have been suffered by the claimant/appellant. He was an in-patient for nine days from 07/11/1999 to 16/11/1999. He had suffered multiple fractures including moderate head injury with clavicle fracture and mild contusion. Ext.A4 further reveals that there was undisplaced fracture of the maxilla. C.T. scan had confirmed fracture frontal bone. The appellant, while he was an in-patient, did have orthopedic, fascio-maxilla and thoracic surgery consultations. There is nothing to show that the appellant had suffered any permanent disability though such an assertion is made in the claim petition. The appellant was a driver by profession. He claims to have been earning an income of Rs.6,000/- per month. No better evidence is produced in support of such a claim for income. We are satisfied that in the absence of any better evidence, it would be safe to assume that he was drawing a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. Exts.A8 and A9 series bills produced suggest that the claimant must have incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,861/- as medical and miscellaneous expenses. It is reasonable to assume that the M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 18 serious injuries suffered must have rendered the appellant involuntarily unemployed for a period of three months. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the appellant can be held to have suffered loss of Rs.39,300/- as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of earnings Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 3 months) 2. Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- (in-patient for nine days and out-patient for some further period of time. Three fractures as indicated above) 3. Medical and miscellaneous Rs.12,500/- expenses (actual bills for Rs.10,861/- produced as Exts.A8 & A9) 4. Bystanders expenses and Rs.1,800/- extra nourishment (9 days x Rs.200/-) 5. Damage to articles Rs.1,000/- (global) --------------- Total Rs.39,300/- ======= 21. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a total amount of M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 19 Rs.39,300/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand three hundred only) as shown above along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of deposit/realisation along with proportionate cost as held in the decision in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KHC 728]. c) 3rd respondent shall produce a cheque for the entire amount in the name of the petitioner before the tribunal. Considering the passage of time, the tribunal, after satisfying that the court fee has been paid, shall release the entire amount to the appellant/claimant forthwith. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 20 M.A.C.A.No.1181 of 2004 21 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010