Negligence in motor accidents may be shared between involved parties, and assessment must consider all evidence, including eyewitness and police reports.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the third respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No.49/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 27/08/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the parents and sisters of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 12/02/2017 at about 07:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-60-960 through Kalikadavu-Anoor public road and when he reached near Anoor V.V. Smaraka Mandiram, tempo traveller bearing registration No.KL-38-E-5250 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent/driver entered appearance but did not file any written statement.

4. The second respondent/owner field written statement admitting that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.

6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 case diary was also marked.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending tempo traveller resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹13,01,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer 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. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the insured vehicle. Exts.B1 scene mahazar and B2 sketch plan show the place of occurrence, which would make it apparent that it was the deceased who had strayed into the wrong side of the road, resulting in the accident. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased indicated his intention to turn right, that is, towards the west by putting on the indicator and it was thereafter he turned towards the west. Despite the same, the first respondent/driver came and dashed against his vehicle, which was only due to the rash and negligence driving of the first respondent.

11. As per Exts.A1 FIR and A4 final report, it is the first respondent who was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle which caused the accident. As held in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal , 2011 (3) KHC 595, prima facie, the charge sheet filed by the police after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. In case any of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden w