J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal arises out of award dated 24.08.2009 in O.P(MV).No.902/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and the sole respondent herein is the original claimant before the Tribunal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

4. The short facts: It is alleged by the claimant that he sustained injury pursuant to a motor traffic accident occurred on 21.12.2003 at about 14.50 p.m while he was travelling on a motorcycle from Makkaraparamba to Malappuram. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, a pick up van proceeded in front of the motorcycle hit against the motorcycle of the claimant and in turn the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL15/2834 driven by the 1st respondent in the O.P in a rash and negligent manner ran over the left leg of the claimant and he sustained serious injuries. Accordingly, the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- from respondents 1 and 2.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed joint written statement disputing the accident and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was alleged that the accident was the contribution on the part of the claimant and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 have no responsibility to compensate the claimant.

6. The Tribunal acting on documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A4 series and Ext.X1, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,73,022/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

7. The main plank of attack in this appeal at the instance of the KSRTC is that the Tribunal found negligence against the 1st respondent without support of any evidence. It is argued further that Annuexre-A produced along with this appeal is the certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.309/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram and as per which, Crime No.502/2003 was registered against the 1st respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C, ended in acquittal. Thus it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant further that the police charge also not produced before the Tribunal and copy of F.I.R alone was given emphasis by the Tribunal to find negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The sum and substance of the argument mooted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the accused was acquitted as per Annexure-A, the finding of the Tribunal fastening negligence on the part of the 1st respondent cannot be sustained.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the original petitioner argued that the original petitioner produced police charge before the Tribunal, but it was omitted to be marked. Therefore, he prayed for marking the police charge in this appeal.

9. On perusal of the case records, copy of police charge against the 1st respondent is available in the case records.

Exhibit-A5 Therefore, I am inclined to mark this as in this appeal.

10. Similarly, I am inclined to mark Annexure A judgment Exhibit-B1 of acquittal as in this appeal.

11. In this matter, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the K.S.R.T.C driver, mainly relying on the copy of the FIR. Ext.A5 marked in this appeal and produced before the Tribunal would go to show that the police laid charge against the 1st respondent attributing negligence. The Tribunal calculated the total compensation entitled to by the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,73,022/- with 7% interest. Out of which, Rs.1,00,172/- was granted towards medical bills.

12. Thus it appears that only reasonable compensation was granted by the Tribunal. In this matter, the judgment of acquittal now marked in this appeal as Ext.B1 was produced only at the appellate stage and therefore it is not fair on the part of this Court to give emphasis to Ext.B1 to upset the finding of negligence entered into by the Tribunal. In view of the matter, I am not incl