COMMON JUDGMENT

As these appeals arise out of the same award i.e., in OP(MV)No.1145 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, and the parties being the same, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the original petition.

2. The concise background facts, for the determination of the appeal, in the claim petition are that: on 23.12.2013 while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 26D/3217, through the Adoor-Kadambanadu public road, and was attempting to overtake an Innova Car bearing registration No.KL 61 7899, a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 26D/3217 (offending vehicle) ridden by one Jaffin Jaffiath (deceased) - the son of the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and while talking on his mobile phone, came from the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. The petitioner was thrown on the road. The petitioner sustained injuries and was treated at various hospitals. The offending vehicle is owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence the claim petition.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents. The 1st respondent filed a written objection, refuting the allegations in the original petition. According to the 1st respondent, the alleged accident was a pre planned murder committed by the petitioner. On the ill-fated day, while the 1st respondent's son had stopped his vehicle on the road margin and was speaking on his mobile phone, the petitioner, out of previous animosity, wilfully hit the motorcycle against the 1st respondent's son, and murdered him. The police after investigation have filed a chargesheet, arraigning the petitioner as an accused for having committed an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The 2nd respondent filed a written objection, reiterating the same very contention as that of the 1st respondent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that as per the charge sheet, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation as it is a case of culpable homicide.

Therefore, the claim petition is only to be dismissed.

5. The petitioner and a witness were examined as PW's 1 and 2 and Exhibits A1 to A21 were marked through them in evidence. The Village Officer was examined as DW1 and Exhibits D1 and D2 series were marked in evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by ordering the 2nd respondent-insurer to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner with cost of Rs.5,000/- .

7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, both the respondents are in appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

9. Undisputedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. The Tribunal, after relying on Ext.B1 charge sheet, by its own findings in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the award has found that the deceased was not negligent, but it was the petitioner who caused the accident.

11. Division Benches of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others [2011(3) KLT 648] and National Insurance Company Ltd., Thalassery v. Ramla and Others [2016(4)KHC 891], have categorically laid down the law the chargesheet/final report filed by the police is prima facie evidence of negligence, unless the proof is rebutted.

12. In the case on hand, the police after investigation have filed Annexure B1 charge sheet in Crime No.2384/2013 of the Adoor Police Station, specifically finding that it was the petitioner who had caused the accident, and the same was with the mensrea to cause death of the deceased. The police have charge sheeted the petitioner for an offence under Section 304 of the IPC.

13. Surprisingly, the Tribunal after