Negligence in vehicle accidents is established primarily by police charge sheets unless effectively rebutted by credible evidence suggesting otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the third respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No.1630/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 21/05/2018. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 29/10/2008 at about 04:30 p.m., while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-01/P-2533 through Varkala-Kallabmbalam road and when he reached near Narikallu junction, car bearing registration No. KL-16/D-7332 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-02/F-4843. The second respondent lost control of his vehicle and hit his motorcycle, as a result of which he was thrown on to the road, whereby he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent/owner of the car; the second respondent/driver of the car; the fifth respondent/the current owner of the autorickshaw and the sixth respondent/driver of the autorickshaw remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer of the car filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the car.

5. The fourth respondent, the registered owner of the autorickshaw filed written statement contending that there was no negligence on the part of the sixth respondent.

6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

7. 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 car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 5,40,500/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

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

9. Heard both sides.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the light of Ext.A1 FIR; A2 scene mahazar and A9 final report, the Tribunal could not have found the second respondent/driver of the car rash or negligent because the police after investigation has filed Ext.A9 final report to the effect that it was the driver of the autorickshaw, namely, the sixth respondent who was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle which resulted in the accident. The autorickshaw does not have insurance, and hence the reason why the claim petitioner has come up with a case that it was the second respondent/car driver who was responsible for the accident. In support of the argument, he relies on the dictum in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3) KHC 595 in which it has been held that the final report/charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Act. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of the testimony of PW2, which has not been discredited, the charge sheet has paled into insignificance and so the Tribunal was right in finding negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the car and he