The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence and clarified the criteria for determining dependents and calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The 2^nd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No. 2866 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram filed this appeal challenging the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence and apportionment of compensation. Respondents 3 and 4 are the cross objectors and they are challenging the compensation fixed by the Tribunal on the ground that they are also dependents of the deceased.

2. The petitioners are the children of late Smt.Thara, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on 08.08.2016, while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, she was thrown to the road and sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The 1^st respondent is also the owner of the offending vehicle; the 2^nd respondent is the insurer; and respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, from the side of the petitioners, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked, and from the side of the 2^nd respondent, Exhibit B1 marked.

4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,77,165/- and out of that, Rs.2,50,000/- each was ordered to be paid to respondents 3 and 4.

5. Heard Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Sri. Girish Kumar M.S., the learned counsel for the cross objectors and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per Exhibit A13 final report filed by the police after investigation, it is only a motor occurrence and no negligence is alleged against the 1^st respondent—the rider of the motorcycle. But, the learned counsel for the claim petitioners/respondents pointed out that an independent witness is examined as PW1 to prove the occurrence and negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent and that PW1 has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the 1^st respondent was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and overspeed and even though PW1 was seriously cross examined, nothing material was brought out to discredit the evidence of PW1 in chief examination regarding negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the 1^st respondent is the father of the claim petitioners and husband of the deceased and in that circumstance, the Tribunal ought to have taken a cautious approach in analyzing the evidence of PW1 and that the Tribunal ought to have found that PW1 is an interested witness.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that there is collusion between the claim petitioners and the 1^st respondent. But, the learned counsel for the cross objectors and claim petitioners pointed out that there is no averment in the written statement of the insurance company that there is collusion between the claim petitioners and the 1^st respondent and no such suggestion was made to PW1 in cross examination and therefore, the appellant is not justified in raising such a contention at this stage.

9. 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 166 of the Motor veh