PRAJESH KUMAR Vs. SAJI JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP (MV) No. 172/2004. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal had dismissed the claim holding that he is not entitled to any compensation. The tribunal also held that there is no evidence to prove the negligence. I am afraid the tribunal has been suspicious about the case and that had resulted in this finding.

(2.) IT is true that the claimant did not have a driving licence to drive the bike involved in the accident. The accident took place on 07/09/2003 and F.I.S was lodged only on 11/09/2003. The explanation tendered was, the driver of the jeep promised that he will meet the expenses for the treatment. When he did not do so, the F.I.S was lodged. The police investigated the case and prepared the scene mahazar. Charge was also laid and on issuance of summons the accused in the criminal case entered appearance and pleaded guilty. So an investigating agency authorised under law, after proper investigation, had put its seal to the factum of accident and the negligence which has been followed by appearance of the accused who pleaded guilty. IT is true that the proceedings in a criminal case may not be binding on the tribunal or an appellate forum. But what has to be looked into is when there is no contention in the written statement regarding any fraud or collusion, one should not dismiss the case when an argument is made at a later stage regarding fraud and collusion. Further fraud and collusion are matters which had to be specifically pleaded and proved. Both cannot be inferred by conjunctures and surmises. IT is true that there cannot be any direct evidence of fraud but it can be inferred only from surrounding circumstances. IT is that matter which requires consideration. Except the argument, no other materials are available before the tribunal to arrive at a decision of fraud or collusion. When it is so, there is no point in disbelieving the investigating agency report and further proceedings. Similarly when a person had pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court and the Court has recorded plea of guilty on satisfaction, it is a piece of evidence that can be considered. IT is settled law that the mere absence of driving licence is not sufficient to infer negligence, unless there are some other evidence available in this case. Here, the evidence is one sided.