The absence of counter-evidence validates negligence claims, while the determination of compensation reflects judicial discretion under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

C.S DIAS,J.

The third respondent-insurer in OP(MV)186/2019 of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Pathanamthitta is the appellant. The petitioners in the claim petition are the respondents in the appeal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Robin Reji (deceased)/the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the third petitioner. The petitioners have averred in the claim petition that, on 9.1.2019, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-03/AA 7619 on the Kottayam-Kottarakkara public road, when he reached near Kulanada junction, a lorry bearing registration No.TN- 82/Y 3607(lorry), driven by the first respondent in a negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The lorry was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. The deceased had sustained fatal injuries and lost his life instantaneously. The deceased was a Mechanical Engineer who was only aged 21 years. The deceased had a notional income of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,250/- from the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte.

4. The third respondent had filed a written statement, inter alia, refuting the allegations in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Nonetheless, the third respondent admitted that the lorry was validly insured with them. The third respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased. Hence, the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The petitioners had produced and marked Exts A1 to A12 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

6. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by permitting the petitioners to recover from the third respondent an amount of Rs.31,70,000/- with interest and cost.

7. Aggrieved by the allowing of the claim petition, the insurer is in appeal.

8. Heard; Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/3rd respondent-

insurer on the grounds for admitting the appeal.

9. The cardinal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are: (i) the Tribunal has erred in not finding the deceased liable for contributory negligence; (ii) the notional income of the deceased fixed at Rs.20,000/- per mensum was excessive; and, (iii) the interest awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable.

Ground No.(i)

10. Admittedly, as per Ext A6 charge-sheet laid by the Pandalam Police in crime No.124/2019, it is proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext A6 charge-sheet.

11. This Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Pazhaniammal , (2011) (3) KLT 648 and a series of decisions has held that, as a general rule, in a claim petition filed under Sec.166 of the Act, 1988, if there is no evidence to the contrary, the charge-sheet can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the accused driver. If any party disputes the charge-sheet, the burden of proof is on such party to adduce evidence and discredit the charge-sheet.

12. Admittedly, in the case at hand, there is no material to discredit Ext A6 charge-sheet. Therefore, I do not find any error in the Tribunal finding that it was the first respondent who was n