Police Diary Cannot Be Treated as Evidence by MACT—Section 172 CrPC Bars It: Kerala High Court Enhances Compensation, Warns Against

Procedural Overreach Claimant Need Only Prove Accident on Preponderance of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Improper Use of Police Case Diary by Claims Tribunal; Grants Over ₹8 Lakh Enhanced Compensation in Fatal Accident Case. 
Kerala High Court emphasized that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot summon or use a police case diary as evidence, citing a clear prohibition under Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). At the same time, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence against a lorry driver in a 2010 accident that killed Thankappan Pillai, and enhanced compensation by ₹8,23,644, declaring:  “The Tribunal is not justified in summoning the case diary for the purpose of an inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.” 
Justice Johnson John stressed that the Tribunal erred by marking case diary portions (Exhibits B1 and B2) in evidence while ignoring the legal embargo under Section 172 CrPC. 

“Charge Sheet Prima Facie Proves Negligence Unless Disproved—Tribunal Cannot Ignore Eyewitness Testimony” 
The case stemmed from a 2010 motor accident where a lorry collided head-on with a car driven by the deceased. The Tribunal earlier accepted the police charge sheet (Exhibit A5) as proof of negligence but was accused by the insurance company of ignoring earlier reports and wrongly relying on later investigations. 
However, the High Court clarified that Exhibit A5, being a charge sheet filed after further investigation, carries evidentiary weight unless specifically rebutted. Citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, the Court noted: “Production of the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence… unless effectively challenged through oral evidence.” 
Both PW4 and PW5, eyewitnesses examined post-remand, testified that the lorry was being driven rashly and hit the car head-on. The Court found their accounts credible. 
“Case Diary Cannot Be Used as Evidence by Civil Tribunal—Only Criminal Courts Have That Power” 
The Tribunal had, despite objections, marked entries from the police case diary. The High Court declared this a violation of Section 172 CrPC, which clearly restricts access to case diaries to criminal courts. 
 Citing Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand and Mukund Lal v. Union of India, the Court reiterated: “Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries… and tribunals, being civil forums, cannot summon or rely on case diary contents.” 
It further held that the insurance company’s reliance on the diary entries to rebut the charge sheet was impermissible, especially in absence of cross-examination of the occurrence witnesses mentioned in the final report. 
“Claimants Need Only Prove Case on Preponderance of Probabilities”—Standard of Proof in MACT Is Settled 
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi (2023), the Court reiterated: “Strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established—preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.” 
The Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding negligence, especially in light of consistent eyewitness accounts and valid procedural investigation. 
“Tribunal Undervalued Income—No Proper Basis for Fixing Notional Monthly Income at ₹10,000” 
 The High Court found that the Tribunal had undervalued the deceased’s business income. While rejecting an unverified Chartered Accountant’s certificate (Exhibit A13), the Court held that: “Considering that the deceased was a retired Subedar Major running a stationery business, owning a car, and maintaining a good standard of living, the notional business income should reasonably be fixed at ₹15,000 per month.” 
Adding the revised business income to the deceased’s pension of ₹13,450 (as per Exhibit A10), the Court held:  “The total monthly income is ₹28,450. With applicable multiplier and 10% future prospects, the compensation for loss of dependency is recalculated at ₹22,53,240.” 
Since the Tribunal had awarded ₹14,29,596 under this head, the Court granted an additional ₹8,23,644 as enhanced compensation. 
Insurance Appeal Dismissed, Claimant Appeal Allowed The High Court concluded:  “M.A.C.A. No. 1430 of 2024 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. M.A.C.A. No. 310 of 2024 filed by the claimants is allowed. The enhanced compensation of ₹8,23,644 shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of application till realization.” 
 “The Tribunal’s use of case diary entries as evidence is declared legally unsustainable. Findings must be based on admissible and tested material.” 
 

Date of Decision: April 4, 2025