Prima facie negligence can be established based on the police charge and evidence presented, and the court has the authority to re-compute compensation based on relevant legal principles.

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. These appeals and cross objection arise from the award in O.P(MV) No.139/2009 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The claimants have come up in appeal in M.A.C.A No.1332 of 2013 and the 4th respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in M.A.C.A No.2275/2013 and Cross Objection No.8/2015 in M.A.C.A No.1332/2013 is filed by the 5th respondent before the Tribunal.

2. The accident is one involving two vehicles and the owners and the drivers of both the vehicles as well as the Insurance Companies are in the party array before the Tribunal and before this Court.

3. The accident occurred on 04.10.2008 at about 11.30 p.m at Pollachi on Thrissur-Kodaikanal public road. The claimants in O.P(MV) 139/2009 are the parents and the siblings of the deceased who was travelling in a Maruti Zen car bearing Registration No.PY IP 3223 driven by the 5th respondent before the Tribunal. The offending vehicle is a Van bearing Reg.No.TN 72B 3834 which was driven by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The case pleaded by the claimants is that the Maruti Zen car was going behind the Van, and dashed against the backside of the Van when the driver stoppped it abruptly. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in his head and while he was being taken to the Government Hospital, Pollachi, succumbed to the injuries.

4. A crime was registered as Crime No.294/2008 at Pollachi West Police Station.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1, 2 and 4 were declared exparte. We will refer to the array of parties as described in M.A.C.A No.1332/2013. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively are the owner, driver and insurer of the Van bearing Reg.No.TN 72B 3834 and respondents 4, 5 and 6 are the owner, driver and the insurer of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.PY IP 3223.

6. We heard M.A.C.A No.1332 of 2013 as the leading case. The same is filed by the parents and siblings of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri Santhosh Kumar submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in entering a finding that the negligence aspect will have to be apportioned as 60% on the 2nd respondent and 40% on the 5th respondent. It is submitted that the Police have registered a case as against the 2nd respondent in this appeal who was the driver of the Van and the same has been marked in evidence as Ext.A6. Ext.A1 is a copy of the F.I.R and Ext.A2 is the copy of scene mahazar. It is submitted that in the light of the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, the Police charge proves prima facie negligence and in the absence of any contrary evidence to disbelieve the contents in the documents, the Tribunal could not have attributed negligence on the part of the 5th respondent.

7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a Sales Officer in a Jwellery shop earing Rs.6,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal only took 50% of the same and fixed the monthly amount as Rs.3,000/- and the multiplier was fixed in tune with the age of the parents which cannot be justified in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802. It is therefore submitted that the quantum of compensation will have to be recomputed. It is also his case that deduction for personal expenses should have been 1/3rd. Further it is pointed out that towards loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- and towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- each alone have been granted. The learned counsel further submitted that for pain and sufferings, no amount has been granted even though the death was on the same day.

8. M.A.C.A No.2275/2013 is filed by the owner of the car challenging that part of the award fixing 40% liability on the driver of the car and