The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of negligence in motor accidents claims and the re-assessment of compensation for various expenses.

Ramachandran Nair , J.

Both these appeals are respectively filed by the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.200/2003 and 204/2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery.

2. In M.A.C.A.1108/2010 the claimant is the appellant and in MACA No.1277/2013 the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Sadarudheen, are the appellants.

3. Two questions arise for consideration in the appeals. First one is the finding regarding contributory negligence on the part of the appellant in MACA 1108/2010 and the second one is regarding the inadequacy of the compensation.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. The appellant in MACA 1108/2010 was riding a motorcycle and the deceased Sadarudheen was traveling as a pillion rider on 10.9.2002 at 1 p.m. They were coming through the National Highway from Pariyaram to Taliparamba, i.e. from north to south. The offending vehicle, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-13G-170 was going from south to north. The vehicles collied at a place called Kappanathattu near Kuppam.

6. In O.P. (M.V.)No.200/2003 Rs.2,80,000/- was claimed as compensation and in O.P.(M.V.)No.204/2003 Rs. 4 lakhs was claimed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has apportioned the contributory negligence at 80:20. 20% is alleged as against the appellant in MACA 1108/2010. It is submitted that the police have registered a crime and the final report was filed arraying the driver of the mini lorry as the accused. It is also submitted, by referring the discussion of the evidence, which the Tribunal entered into a finding adverse to the appellant in MACA 1108/2010 only based on one sentence in his deposition that after the hitting by the lorry they were thrown away by about 2 mtrs.

8. We have gone through the evidence in the matter. The rider of the motorcycle has been examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A3 are the records in crime No.609/2002. Ext.A2 is the scene mahazar and Ext.A3 is the copy of the Final Report. The road at the place of accident is having a width of 8 mtrs., and going by the entries in the scene mahazar the distance towards east from the place of occurrence is 3 mtrs., and the distance towards west from the place of occurrence is 5 mtrs. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motorcycle had not crossed the mid line.

9. We find force in the above submissions. Apart from the same the Tribunal took the view as against the appellant in MACA 1108/2010, in spite of the final report by taking the view that the police charge as a whole cannot be relied on for finding negligence in a motor accident claim. This view cannot be accepted in the light of the dictum laid down by this court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] wherein the Division Bench was of the view that prima facie, charge sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. If any one of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced by any party, in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunals should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence and in such a case the charge sheet will pale into insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence.

10. In the light of the above and in the absence of any evidence on the part of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, we accept Ext.A2 and find that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent. Therefore, the finding that the appellant in MACA 1108/2010 has contributed to the accident at 20% cannot be sustained and we vacate the same. We hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing