Lack of a valid driving license does not automatically imply contributory negligence; evidence is required to establish such a claim.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioner respectively in O.P.(MV) No.700 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the Award dated 30/04/2019. The sole respondent in MACA No.74/2020 is the claim petitioner and the sole respondent in MACA No.93/2020, the third respondent/insurer in the petition. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 27/01/2013 at 10:30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, car bearing registration no.KL523578 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of Rs.60,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement and additional written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A21 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.61,55,700/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioner have come up in appeals.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that though a contention of contributory negligence on the part of the claim petitioner was taken up in the written statement, the same has not been considered in the correct perspective by the Tribunal. The claim petitioner did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident which would show that he was not having the necessary skills for riding a motorcycle and hence the Tribunal ought to have found that he had also contributed to the accident in equal proportion, goes the argument.

9.1. Ext.A1 is the FIR and Ext.A2 (B1), the final report, in Crime no.116/2013, Koyilandy police station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. As per the final report, the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent/driver of the car bearing registration no. KL523578. The Tribunal relying on the dictum in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3) KLT 648, held that the final report is prima facie evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Act; that once the final report/charge sheet is produced by the claim petitioner, the burden of proof shifts to the party who challenges the same and that it then becomes his responsibility to adduce evidence to disprove the final report. Neither the se