Incident Did Not Arise Out Of Collision Between Vehicles: Kerala HC Dismisses Claim For Compensation In Motor Accident Case

While considering the appeal filed by Claimants/Appellants challenging the dismissal of their claim for compensation on the death of Alexander Kurian by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Kerala High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal after finding that the same was based on FSL report which clearly stated that no collision occurred between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle driven by the deceased.

The High Court held so, after finding that the deceased did not die due to any collision between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle driven by the deceased, and rather he died as the motorcycle skidded on the road.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sophy Thomas observed that “If the incident arose out of a collision between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle, he might have stated that fact in the FI statement itself. If such a collision occurred, there was no reason for PWs 1 and 3 to say that, they did not see any such collision. The road at the place of the incident was damaged due to pipeline work as deposed by PWs 1 and 3. Moreover, Ext.B3 wound certificate, indicates that the deceased had consumed alcohol. Ext.B1, the FSL report, shows that there was no collision between the motorcycle and the autorickshaw in question”.

“When all these facts are read together, the irresistible conclusion is that no collision occurred between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle, and so the 1st respondent was not responsible for the accident. If the motorcycle ridden by the deceased skidded and he sustained injuries, the 1st respondent who took him to the hospital, or the insurer of his autorickshaw could not be held liable”, added the Bench.

Advocate Mathew John appeared for the Appellants, whereas Senior Advocate George Cherian appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that the first appellant is the mother and the second appellant is the wife of Alexander Kurian, who died in a road traffic accident. When the deceased was riding his motorcycle, an autorickshaw driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle and he sustained fatal injuries. Although he was taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Due to his death, the appellants lost their breadwinner and hence approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakh. After analyzing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal found that the autorickshaw driven by the first respondent never hit the motorcycle, and the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased skidded on the road, the claim of the appellants was turned down. Hence, the appellants approached the High Court.

After considering the submission, the Bench found from the First Information Statement, that the brother-in-law of the deceased had stated before the Police that, the motorcycle ridden by the deceased skidded, and he fell and sustained injuries, and on his way to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he breathed his last.

The Bench further found that the prosecution witnesses had denied having stated to the Police that the autorickshaw dashed against the motorcycle and then the rider fell on the road, since according to them, before the Magistrate Court also, they deposed that, they did not see any collision between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle.

“If the occurrence witnesses stated to PW4 that, they had not seen any collision between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle, and the FSL report also substantiated that fact, PW4 was not justified in laying Ext.A3 charge sheet against the 1st respondent”, added the Bench.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal found that the prosecution witness had not considered the forensic lab report and the wound certificate indicating the smell of alcohol in the breath of the deceased.

“The testimony of PWs 1 and 3, the eyewitnesses to the incident, would clearly show that the pipeline work was going on, on the side of the road and the road was damaged. PW3 categorically stated that the autorickshaw was seen parked some distance away and the rider of the motorcycle fell on the road and sustained injuries. The incident occurred at 12.30 pm in broad daylight”, added the Court.

The Bench elaborated that the testimony of prosecution witness and eye-witnesses justifies the Tribunal in finding that, the accident was not due to any collision between the motorcycle and the autorickshaw, and in all probability, the deceased, who was in a drunken state, while riding his motorcycle through a damaged road, might have fallen from the bike due to skidding.

While on one hand, the Bench called it unfortunate that a young man lost his life in a road traffic accident by falling from his bike, on the other hand, the Bench clarified that it will be equally unfortunate, if an innocent person, who tried to help the injured by taking him to hospital in his autorickshaw, was made an accused in a criminal case.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Marykutty Kurian and Anr. v. Babu Joseph and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment