Evidence indicating negligence must be critically evaluated; police reports alone do not determine liability without corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.

(MV).No.18/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred on 26.09.2012. The accident occurred when the motor cycle ridden by him through Kodungalloor – Irinjalakuda road was collided with another motor cycle ridden by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-47/B-6206, which was being ridden by the 1st respondent was insured with the respondent herein, who was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. It was contended that he sustained serious injuries due to the accident, which resulted in permanent partial disablement as well. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the 1st respondent. An amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed as the compensation from the respondent in the claim petition.

2. The 1st respondent did not contest the claim petition and he was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent in the claim petition, who is the respondent herein filed a written statement disputing the negligence and quantum of compensation. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellant himself. However, the coverage of policy in respect of the motor cycle driven by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal was accepted. The appellant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. From the side of the respondents Exts.B1 to B3 were marked.

3. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant as well as the 1st respondent and the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant was fixed as 40%. The quantum of compensation awarded was Rs.4,92,360/- and being 60% of the said amount Rs.2,95,416/- was directed to be deposited by the 2nd respondent insurance company along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. This appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid award.

4. Heard Sri.G.Balamuraleedharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.A.R.George, learned counsel for the insurance company.

5. The main dispute that is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the contributory negligence. It is contended that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing contributory negligence upon the appellant with regard to the cause of accident. However, the learned counsel for the insurance company points out that the police has filed charge sheet implicating both the appellant as well as the 1st respondent. In such circumstances, it was pointed out that, the finding of the Tribunal need not be interfered with.

6. It is true that, the police after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellant as well. In the award, the Tribunal has discussed the contents of scene mahazar in detail and fixed the percentage of contributory negligence as 40% on the basis of the same. During the course of discussion with regard to the said issue, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Jose P.J v. Niyas and Others [2016 (1) KHC 485 (DB)], wherein, the liability of the parties under similar circumstances was considered and fixed the contributory negligence of the claimant therein as

25%.

7. The appellant got himself examined as PW1 and gave evidence as against the findings in the police report. On the contrary, no evidence is seen adduced by the respondents. It is a well settled position of law that in the absence of any contra evidence, the findings in the final report filed by the police can be accepted for the purpose of determining the liability for adjudicating the question of negligence in an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . However, in a case where a party has adduced evidence contrary to the findings in police report, a different approach can be made and a decision can