JUDGMENT

The appellant was the 1st respondent in OP(MV)

No.535/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioner and the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the status before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 25.02.2016. It was his case that, while he was standing at Pallimukku junction on the Kollam - Thiruvananthapuram National Highway, he was hit down by a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 02-AN 7697 (motor cycle) driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The motorcycle was owned by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was a coolie worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner sustained serious injuries and was treated at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and the Azeezia Medical College Hospital, Kollam. The petitioner has became permanently disabled. Hence, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- from the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed a joint written statement contending that the accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner. It is also stated that the compensation claimed under the different heads was exorbitant and excessive. Hence, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The petitioner produced and marked Exts.A1 to A9 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition by holding that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant and the 1st respondent being the owner of the vehicle was held vicariously liable, and was directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,06,750/-

with interest and proportionate cost.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the 1st respondent is in appeal.

7. Heard; Smt.Reshma T., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st respondent.

8. The principal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:

(i). The finding of negligence on the 2nd respondent is erroneous.

(ii). The Tribunal has not taken note of Ext.A3 scene mahazer.

(iii).The Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the appellant was no way connected with the accident as the 2nd respondent had taken away the motor cycle from the workshop where it was given for repairs without her consent.

(iv).The notional income and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

Ground No.(i)

9. The petitioner had produced Ext.A2 charge sheet filed by the Police, wherein it is specifically found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pazhaniammal : [2011 (3) KLT 648] has succinctly held that, production of charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If any of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden is on such party to let in evidence and discredit the charge sheet.

11. In the instant case, although the petitioner had produced Ext.A1 FIR, Ext.A2 charge sheet, Ext.A3 scene mahazer, Ext.A4 vehicle mahazer and Ext.A5 AMVI report, the respondents have not let in any evidence to the contrary to discredit the aforesaid documents relating to the accident. Therefore, Ext.A2 charge sheet is accepted as evidence of negligence as held in Pazhaniammal (supra) that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent. Hence, I answer Ground No.(i) against the appellant and hold that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent. Admittedly the appellant/1st respondent was the owner of the vehicle and she is vicariously liable to pay the comp