IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1545 of 2007(A) ------------------------------------- O.P.(M.V).NO.311/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA. .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- V.P.UNNI, S/O.PAPPAN, VALIPLACKAL, MARANGATTUPPALLY P.O., KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, THADATHIL HOUSE, MANACHANAD P.O. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. ` ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC FOR R.1, ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R.2. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1545 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) 311/03. the claimant, a traveller in an auto, sustained injuries in a road accident. The case appears to be that there was a collision between the auto and a lorry and that has resulted in the accident. The first information statement was given by a co-traveller Sarasamma, who has been examined as RW1 before the Tribunal. According to the police, she gave a statement attributing negligence on the lorry driver. When she was examined before the Tribunal, she had given a go by to the same and would depose that only a blank paper was signed and given to the police. But to prove it otherwise, RW2 the Constable, who recorded the first information statement, was examined. Even if it is taken for granted that RW1 has stated so, whether it shall be the basis for arriving at the question of negligence is a matter that has to be considered by the court. The very same investigating agency after complete investigation found that it was the auto driver who was negligent and therefore filed a charge sheet MACA No.1545/07 2 before the court below. So even taking note of the first information statement, the investigating agency has only arrived at a decision against the auto driver. There is difficulty in these type of cases and really when it amounts to hit and run cases. 2. It may not be correct on the part of a court or a Tribunal to attribute negligence on a person even without knowing who he is and even without tracing that vehicle. Therefore, such an approach on mere conjectures and surmises arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. Then the only method is to rely upon the documents that are available before the Tribunal. Documents available before the Tribunal mainly the final report namely the charge sheet only establishes the negligence against the auto driver. Further, RW1 has explained how she had given the statement before the police by stating that she had only given her signature in a blank paper. When it is so, it is only just and correct to hold that the auto driver was negligent especially in the light of the fact that PW1 has so deposed also. Further, the driver of the auto has not been examined and he has not contested the case and that there is no case that there is a collusion between the auto driver and the claimant. Therefore, under such circumstances, I vacate the finding of the MACA No.1545/07 3 Tribunal that the accident had taken on account of the composite negligence of the auto driver and the lorry driver. I hold that the auto driver was negligent and that has resulted in the accident. 3. So far as compensation is concerned, only a reasonable amount has been granted and it does not call for any interference. But the final award of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to deposit only 50% of the amount is liable to be modified. It has to be stated that they are liable to pay the entire amount due under the award. With these modifications, the appeal is disposed of. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1545/07 4