The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the insurance company in such cases.

M.L. Joseph Francis, J.

This appeal is filed by the respondent No. 3 in O.P. (MV) No. 691 of 2002 on the file of M.A.C.T., Kasargod. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in that O.P., which was filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein are the supplementary respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in that O.P.

2. The allegation is that on 23.3.2001 while deceased Shihab and others were travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing No. KL 14-A 3698 from Kunhikanam to Ichi-langod driven by respondent No. 1 and when the said auto rickshaw reached near Chandragiri Guest House, Mogral Puthur at about 3.15 p.m., a motor cycle bearing No. KL 13-A 3703 came at a high speed and after overtaking a lorry hit against the auto rickshaw, as a result of which the auto rickshaw overturned and thereby Shihab and others sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, Shihab died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The accident was due to negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles. Respondent No. 1 was the driver, respondent No. 2 was the owner and respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the auto rickshaw. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the brothers and sisters of Shihab. The respondent No. 1 is the father of Shihab. The petitioners claim Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. The respondent No. 3 filed a written statement admitting the policy of the auto rickshaw and contends that the accident was due to negligence of the motorcyclist. In view of the contentions of respondent No. 3 supplementary respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were impleaded as they are the rider and owner of the motor cycle. Respondent No. 4 filed written statement contending that accident was due to negligence of respondent No. 1 and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

3. In the Claims Tribunal, PW 1 was examined and Exhs. A1 to A3 and B1 and B2 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of both drivers of the vehicles and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,54,500 as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from all the respondents jointly and severally and respondent No. 3 was directed to pay the entire compensation with liberty to recover half of the award amount from respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Against that award, the respondent No. 3 filed this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award is opposed to law and evidence to the extent it makes the appellant liable to pay 50 per cent of the compensation and the direction to deposit the full amount is illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that charge-sheet, Exh. B1, is not against both drivers but only against respondent No. 4 who was driving the motor cycle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that scene mahazar, Exh. B2, categorically indicates that the motor cycle was on the wrong side of the road.

6. It is well settled law that while considering the claim petition, the Tribunal is required to hold an inquiry and it is not to act as a criminal court, so as to find whether the petitioner has established the occurrence beyond any shadow of doubt. In the inquiry, if there is prima facie evidence of occurrence, there is no reason to disbelieve such evidence. Exh. A1 is the copy of F.I.R. in the criminal case registered against the rider of the motor cycle which was registered on the basis of the statement given by respondent No. 1. Exh. B2 is the copy of scene mahazar prepared on 24.3.2001. On going through Exh. B2, it cannot be said that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of rider of the motor cycle. In a petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioners need no