AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Badharudeen, J
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for the respondents in this matter.
In this appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company, the 3rd respondent, award in O.P.(M.V) No.1877/2004 dated 19.02.2009, is under challenge on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal fastening negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent is erroneous.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the occurrence was on 30.11.2002, police registered crime in this matter on the basis of a private complaint lodged by the complainant on 23.05.2003 before the Magistrate court. It is submitted further that though police filed Ext.A3 charge sheet, attributing negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the court below failed to give emphasis to Ext.X1, copy of GD entry of Arthunkal Police Station. According to the learned counsel, as per the GD entry, on 03.12.2002 (after three days of occurrence), it was stated that the alleged offending vehicle, KL-4/D-1607 was ridden by the original petitioner himself as reported by the said petitioner and in consequence thereof, the accident occurred. Thus the police charge cannot given emphasis to find negligence, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
On perusal of Ext.X1, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner found to be having force. However, facts remain is that nobody was examined by the appellant in order to negative Ext.A3 final report. Similarly, to prove the contents of Ext.X1 and disbelieve Ext.A3 in the context of Ext.X1 also nobody was examined. In this context, the court below found negligence against the 2nd respondent acting on the police charge. Since no convincing evidence otherwise adduced to give emphasis to Ext.X1, ignoring the police charge, I am not inclined to revisit the finding of the Tribunal in the matter of negligence.
Accordingly, the challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company found against. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed.