Establishing contributory negligence requires evaluating evidence comprehensively, and the charge sheet serves as prima facie evidence of negligent conduct.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.2703/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 12/12/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the petitioner, on 28/01/2012 at 07:00

p.m, he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL 46/F-805 through Guruvayoor – Choondal public road and when he reached in front of Revathy Complex, the front right door of a car bearing registration No.KL 7/AP -149 parked by the side of the road was opened carelessly by the first respondent, the driver of the car, as a result of which the door hit motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-4/E- 8684 which was going in front of the autorickshaw in which the claimant was travelling due to which the rider of the motorcycle fell down. On seeing this the third respondent, the driver of the autorickshaw, who was driving the autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner without maintaining a safe distance from the motor bike going in front abruptly applied the brake, as a result of which the autorickshaw turned turtle. The claimant sustained serious injuries in the accident. The second and fourth respondents are the owners of the car and the autorikshaw respectively. The car involved did not have any insurance. The fifth respondent is the insurer of the autorickshaw. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner and hence he claimed an amount of ₹7,00,000/- as compensation under various heads.

3. Respondents 3 and 4 remained ex-parte.

4. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the car denied any rashness or negligence on the part of the latter.

According to them, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, driver of the autorickshaw.

5. The fifth respondent insurer admitted valid insurance policy for the autorickshaw owned by the fourth respondent.

However, denied any liability. According to the fourth respondent, the accident happened solely due to the negligent act of the first respondent/driver of the car, who had opened the car door without noticing the vehicles passing by. The accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of the car as well as the autorickshaw.

6. Before the Tribunal PWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 and RW2 were examined on behalf of the respondents and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.

7. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found respondents 1 to 5 jointly and severally liable and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,43,830/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs.

Contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the car and autorickshaw was found and so held that there was 75% negligence on the part of the first respondent car driver and 25% negligence on the part of the third respondent autorickshaw driver. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 were thus directed to pay proportionately. Aggrieved, the claimant 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. The impugned award is challenged by the claimant on the following grounds- Contributory negligence - The learned counsel for the claimant challenged the finding of the Tribunal regarding the percentage of contributory negligence fixed. According to him, the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent driver of the autorickshaw, who not only did not maintain a safe distance from the motor