The burden of proof in negligence cases lies with the party disputing the charge sheet, necessitating comprehensive evidence for claims.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 02^nd day of February, 2026

This appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the award dated 08.06.2022 in O.P.(M.V) No.1879/2016, on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum.

2. The alleged case of the petitioner/appellant is as follows: The appellant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-01-AL-5512 at around 9 PM on 02.04.2016. When the vehicle reached near Kattakkada Market, in front of Punchiri Glass House, the 2nd respondent, who was riding the motorcycle, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, suddenly turned the vehicle. As a result, the appellant was thrown onto the road and sustained injuries. She was taken to the Medical College Hospital, where it was assessed that she had Grade III mobility of the upper left incisor, right fracture symphysis, fracture of the mandible, and other injuries.

3. It is further contended that the 1^st respondent is the owner of the motorcycle, which had a valid insurance policy with the 3^rd respondent. At the time of the accident, she was 44 years old and worked as a tailor with a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. Ultimately, she was assessed to have 14% disability. The claim was originally for Rs. 3.34 lakhs, which was later limited to Rs. 2.50 lakhs.

The Tribunal framed the following questions for consideration:

1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which was an outcome of rash and negligent conduct of the 2^nd respondent as the rider of the o motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-01-AL-5512?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for; if so, what shall be the quantum?

3.Who shall pay the compensation?

4.Reliefs and costs?

4. However, after evaluating Exts.A1 to A17 and B1, B1(a), and examining witnesses PW1 and PW2, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant could not establish any negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent, rider of the motorcycle. Accordingly, the 1^st respondent, as the owner of the motorcycle, cannot be fastened with any liability, and the 3^rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent. As there was no convincing evidence regarding negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not sustain injuries in the accident due to rash or negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 2^nd respondent. On this basis, the petition was dismissed by the Tribunal.

5. The appellant contends that the compensation envisaged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 is intended to provide relief to victims, and that the Tribunal, without bearing in mind the objective of the legislature, erroneously dismissed the claim. The appellant further contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal & Others [ 2011 (3) KLT 648 ], wherein it was held that if one of the parties disputes the charge sheet filed by the police, the burden lies on that party to adduce oral evidence, and the charge sheet would pale into insignificance, with the dispute to be decided based on the evidence adduced before the Tribunal.

6. In the present case, the appellant disputed the police charge sheet, which necessitated her entering the witness box and giving evidence. However, the Tribunal did not properly appreciate this evidence and relied solely on Exts.A1, B1, and B1(a) in deciding the original petition.

7. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, taking into account the evidence adduced by the appellant and the grounds raised in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall complete the p