Sudheendra Kumar, J.

The appellants are the parents, wife and children of deceased Vasudevan who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 20-6-2006 at 4.45 p.m. The deceased was riding a motor cycle along the public road. At that time, a tempo traveller bearing Reg. No. KL-10/V6961 driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle ridden by the deceased and as a consequence, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to the injuries at or about the same time.

2. In connection with the death of deceased Vasudevan, the Tribunal assessed an amount of Rs. 6,04,000/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal awarded only 75% of the assessed amount as compensation holding that there was 25% negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

4. The first question to be considered is as to whether the deceased contributed to the accident or not. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR, which would show that the crime was registered in connection with this case against the driver of the tempo traveller for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A IPC. Ext.A5 is the copy of the charge-sheet, which would show that the police after completing the investigation filed the final report against the driver of the tempo traveller, who is the first respondent herein, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC.

5. The Tribunal relied on Ext.A2 copy of the scene mahazar and found that the deceased contributed to the accident and accordingly, the Tribunal fixed 25% negligence on the deceased. The Tribunal observed in paragraph 9 of the award that as per Ext.A2 scene mahazar, the spot of impact was not made clear. Even after being convinced that the spot of accident was not clear from Ext. A2, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the deceased contributed to the accident.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011(3) KLT 648] held thus:-

“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 does 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. In all other cases, such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act”.

7. It is clear from the above decision that chargesheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence against the indictee for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If any of the parties does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that the charge-sheet is collusive, the Tribunal can record that the charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence.

8. In this case, apart from the contention raised by the 3rd respondent that the deceased contributed to the accident, there is absolutely no evidence before the Tribunal to show that the deceased contributed to the accident. After stating that the spot of impact was not made clear in Ext. A2 scene mahazar, the Tribunal proceeded further and stated that the accident was a head on collision and that the accident occurred on the middle of the road. Ext. A2 forms part and parcel of the final report filed by the police. The 3rd respondent did not adduce any evidence to challenge the veracity of the finding in Ext.A5 charge-sheet. The Tribunal also did not fe