IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants must establish negligence on a balance of probabilities, and compensation must reflect established judicial principles, including future prospects for self-employed individuals.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

The 3rd respondent insurance company and the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 1161 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam filed the above appeal and cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

2. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Pradeep, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.07.2012. According to the claim petitioners, while the deceased was riding a motor bike along with his friend as pillion rider, bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and exorbitant speed abruptly stopped in the middle of the road without any signal and thereby, the motor cycle ridden by the deceased rammed into the rear side of the bus and thereby, the deceased sustained severe injuries and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment in hospital on 09.07.2012.

3. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked from the side of the claim petitioners and from the side of the respondents, DW1 examined and Exhibits C1 and C2 were marked.

4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claim petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that as per Exhibit A8 final report filed by the police, no negligence is alleged against the 2nd respondent, driver of the bus and the evidence of DW1, Investigating Officer, will also show that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the bus. The learned counsel for the cross objectors invited my attention to the evidence of PW2, who was the pillion rider in the motorcycle who deposed that the offending bus has overtaken the motorcycle in over speed and abruptly stopped on the middle of the road by applying sudden brake and thereby, the motorcycle driven by the deceased rammed to the back side of the bus.

7. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW2 for recording a finding against the 2nd respondent driver of the bus.

8. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others (2011(3) KHC 595), this Court held that as a general rule, production of the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 116 of the Motor vehicles Act. In the said decision, it was also held that if any one of the parities do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence and 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. It was further held that in all other cases, such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Mathew Alexander v. Muhammed Shafi (2023 INSC 621) shows that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants and that the claimants need only to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the said case, it was also held that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.

10. In this case, no occurrence witness is examined from the side of the insurance company. Admittedly, DW1 is not an occurrence witness. Even though PW2 was seriously cross examined, nothing material was brought out