pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the production of
Police charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence. A
Division Bench of this Court in Pazhaniammal's case (2011(3) KLT
648) has addressed that question and has held as follows in paragraphs
7 and 8:
"As a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of
the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of
negligence for the purpose of a claim under S.166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of
distrust of the police. Prima facie, charge sheet filed by a
police officer after due investigation can be accepted as
evidence of negligence against the indictee. If any one of the
parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on
such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced
by any party, in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunals
should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral
evidence and in such a case the charge sheet will pale into
insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the
basis of the evidence. In all other cases such charge sheet can
be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim
under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We mean to say that on
production of such charge sheet the shifting of burden must
take place. It is not as though we are not conscious of the
dangers and pit falls involved in such an approach. But we feel
that adoption and recognition of such practice would help to
reduce the length of the long queue for justice before the
Tribunals. The judicial recognition of the practice will help the
Tribunals to ensure the optimum use of judicial time at their
disposal for productive ventures. We do not intend to say that
collusive charge sheets need be accepted. Wherever on the
facts of a given case the Tribunals feel that the police charge
sheet does not satisfy their judicial conscience, the Tribunals
can record that the charge sheet cannot be accepted and can call
upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of the
accident and the alleged negligence. In such a case, the issue of
negligence must be decided on the other evidence, ignoring the
charge sheet."
Herein, through P.W.1, the charge sheet has been marked as Ext.A3.
The same, therefore, is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence.
The onus of proof has been shifted to the insurance company and as
already found above, it is recorded in the "B" diary, that the third
respondent insurance company reported that there is no further
evidence. Therefore, the finding on negligence has been rightly
rendered by the Tribunal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015
MACA.No. 1075 of 2009 ( )
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.Vs SHOBHANA OMANAKUTTAN,
