IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1349 of 2011() ----------------------- O.P(MV) No.353/2010 OF M.A.C.T, TIRUR APPELLANT : 3RD RESPONDENT -------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, OPP.TOWN HALL, TIRUR, PIN-676101 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF RESPONDENTS:PETTIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 --------------- 1. ASHIFK, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE, PATTODU HOUSE, VALANCHERI P.O, MORAYU, PIN – 673 649. 2. ITHALU.K, AGED NOT KNOWN, PROPRIETOR, CALICUT SOAP WORKS, PETTA, P.O.FEROKE, CALICUT, PIN – 673 631. 3. ABDUL KAREEM K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN K.AMMAYI PARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.PULIKKAL, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, PIN – 673 637. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1349 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The insurance company is the appellant. The insurance company was, by the impugned award, directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,66,115/- as compensation along with interest and cost to the claimant/injured. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to raise, in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para.9 on the question of negligence, the learned counsel for the appellant accepts that the road lies east-west. The motor cycle in which the injured was riding as a pillion rider was proceeding from east towards west. The insured lorry was proceeding from west towards east. A collision took place and the rider of the motor cycle succumbed to the injuries. The pillion rider suffered injuries. The Tribunal had before it only Ext.A9 final report/charge sheet filed by the police after investigation. That showed that the police had come to the conclusion after due investigation that the driver of the insured M.A.C.A No.1349 of 2011 2 vehicle was culpably negligent. No better evidence was placed before Court. Parties did not choose to let in any evidence on the question of negligence. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, relied upon Ext.A9 final report submitted by the police after due investigation and held that the scales have been tilted in favour of the claimant. This Court has already considered the same question in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. V. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] and it has been held that in the absence of any better evidence, the final report filed by the police can be reckoned subject to safeguards as sufficient evidence of negligence. In this case, Ext.A9 was marked. No contra evidence was adduced by anyone. The Tribunal, according to us, did not commit any error in accepting and acting upon Ext.A9 final report submitted by the police. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from Ext.A5 scene mahazar it is evident that the driver of the insured vehicle was not negligent and that the rider of the motor cycle had contributed to the accident. The road, as stated earlier, lies east-west. The motor cycle was proceeding from east towards west and the insured vehicle was proceeding from west towards east. The spot of accident is marked as situated at M.A.C.A No.1349 of 2011 3 4 metres to the north of the southern kerb. The road has a width of 9 metres. The imaginary mid line hence passes through the middle at a distance of 4.95 metre from either kerb. This evidently indicates, as found by the Tribunal that the accident took place on the fairly broad road on the side earmarked for use of vehicles proceeding from east towards west. The insured vehicle had strayed 95 c.m beyond the imaginary mid line and had caused the accident. 4. At any rate, from the available inputs and from the arguments advanced, we find no reason to come to a view different from the view take by the Tribunal on the question of negligence. It follows that this appeal is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/