B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV)No.93 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur.

2. The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 10.6.2008 at 6 p.m. While the appellant was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-10/Z-831 along Valancheri-Koppam public road, an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-10/E-8726, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle ridden by the appellant when the appellant reached near Nadakkav Service Station and as a consequence, the appellant sustained serious injuries. The appellant was immediately taken to the hospital and treated there as inpatient.

3. As per the award impugned, the appellant was granted a compensation of Rs.87,730/- in connection with the injuries sustained by him. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant also contributed to the accident. The negligence on the part of the appellant was fixed at 50% by the Tribunal on finding that the appellant did not possess a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle at the relevant time. Aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the accident and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

5. The Tribunal found that the appellant and the second respondent were negligent in the ratio 50:50 in causing the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since there is no evidence to indicate that the appellant contributed to the accident, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the appellant contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. The learned counsel for the third respondent, on the other hand, has argued that since the appellant did not have a valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle at the relevant time, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant contributed to the accident.

6. Ext.A1 is the FIR registered in connection with the above accident, which would show that the police registered the crime against the driver of the autorickshaw, who is the second respondent, for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of IPC. Ext.A5 is the copy of the charge-sheet, which would show that the police, after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Court against the second respondent herein for offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC. Even though it was contended by the third respondent that the appellant also contributed to the accident, no evidence was adduced by the third respondent to rebut the finding in Ext.A5 charge-sheet. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:-

“Prima facie, charge-sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. If anyone 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. The dictum in Pazhaniammal (supra) would make it clear that the charge-sheet filed by the police is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence against the indictee for the purpose of a claim under section 166 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the charge filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accep