JUDGMENT : B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV)No.93 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. 2. The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 10.6.2008 at 6 p.m. While the appellant was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-10/Z-831 along Valancheri-Koppam public road, an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-10/E-8726, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle ridden by the appellant when the appellant reached near Nadakkav Service Station and as a consequence, the appellant sustained serious injuries. The appellant was immediately taken to the hospital and treated there as inpatient. 3. As per the award impugned, the appellant was granted a compensation of Rs.87,730/- in connection with the injuries sustained by him. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant also contributed to the accident. The negligence on the part of the appellant was fixed at 50% by the Tribunal on finding that the appellant did not possess a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle at the relevant time. Aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the accident and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. The Tribunal found that the appellant and the second respondent were negligent in the ratio 50:50 in causing the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since there is no evidence to indicate that the appellant contributed to the accident, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the appellant contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. The learned counsel for the third respondent, on the other hand, has argued that since the appellant did not have a valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle at the relevant time, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant contributed to the accident. 6. Ext.A1 is the FIR registered in connection with the above accident, which would show that the police registered the crime against the driver of the autorickshaw, who is the second respondent, for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of IPC. 6. Ext.A1 is the FIR registered in connection with the above accident, which would show that the police registered the crime against the driver of the autorickshaw, who is the second respondent, for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of IPC. Ext.A5 is the copy of the charge-sheet, which would show that the police, after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Court against the second respondent herein for offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC. Even though it was contended by the third respondent that the appellant also contributed to the accident, no evidence was adduced by the third respondent to rebut the finding in Ext.A5 charge-sheet. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [ 2011 (3) KLT 648 ], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- “Prima facie, charge-sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. If anyone of the parties does 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. 7. The dictum in Pazhaniammal (supra) would make it clear that the charge-sheet filed by the police is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence against the indictee for the purpose of a claim under section 166 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the charge filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence against the accused mentioned therein. If the Tribunal feels that the charge-sheet is collusive, the Tribunal can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of the accident and the alleged negligence. In such case, the issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet. If the Tribunal feels that the charge-sheet is collusive, the Tribunal can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of the accident and the alleged negligence. In such case, the issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet. So far as the present case is concerned, apart from the FIR and the charge-sheet, there is absolutely no material before the court to speak about the cause of accident. It appears from Ext.A5 charge-sheet that the investigation revealed that the second respondent herein, who was the driver of the autorickshaw, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident. In the said circumstances, the police filed Ext.A5 charge-sheet against the second respondent herein for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC. 8. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the absence of driving licence is a factor to be taken into consideration to hold that the claimant also contributed to the accident. Admittedly, the injured/claimant was a minor boy aged 17 years during the relevant period. When a person suffers injuries partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons and partly due to his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured/claimant, who contributed to the accident, is referred to as contributory negligence. Where the injured/claimant is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated by reason of the negligence on his part; but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. When two vehicles are involved in an accident and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured/claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider as to whether the injured/claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility i.e., his contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a factor to be specifically pleaded and proved by the party who alleges contributory negligence. In this case, even though there was pleading, there was no material before the Tribunal to prove the contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a factor to be specifically pleaded and proved by the party who alleges contributory negligence. In this case, even though there was pleading, there was no material before the Tribunal to prove the contributory negligence. However, the Tribunal found that since the injured/claimant was not having a valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle, he contributed 50% negligence to the accident. 9. The Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh ( 2008 ACJ 1834 ) held thus:- “If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident.” 10. The claimant in Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) was also a minor having no driving licence to drive the motor cycle as in the present case. It is clear from the ratio in Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) that merely because a person did not possess a driving licence, it cannot be said that he contributed to the accident, in the absence of any evidence in that regard. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant contributed to the accident. However, merely because of the reason that the appellant did not possess the driving licence, the Tribunal held that the appellant also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. Therefore, the finding by the Tribunal that the appellant also contributed to the accident, on the mere reason that the appellant did not possess the driving licence, cannot be sustained. 11. The Tribunal also observed that the appellant did not produce the scene mahazar prepared in the above crime to prove the case of the appellant. This court as per judgment dated 27.11.2017 in M.A.C.A. No.1018 of 2012 relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others [ (2013) 9 SCC 166 ] and held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, the Tribunal would not be justified in drawing any conclusion about the negligence on the part of any person on the basis of scene mahazar. Therefore, the non-production of the scene mahazar in this case had no significance at all. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no basis for the finding by the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the accident. Therefore, the non-production of the scene mahazar in this case had no significance at all. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no basis for the finding by the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the accident. On the other hand, the only material on record, namely, Ext.A5 charge-sheet, would clearly show that the police officer after completing the investigation came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the second respondent. In view of the above reasons, the direction by the Tribunal to reduce the compensation amount by 50% cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same. 12. Now we may consider as to whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation or not. Ext.A3 is the copy of the wound certificate, which would show that the appellant sustained injuries including fracture of shaft of right femur and right patella. The appellant was treated as inpatient in the hospital for 13 days in connection with the injuries sustained by him. It appears that the appellant had undergone review for eight times after his discharge from the hospital on 23.6.2008. Since the appellant had undergone treatment as inpatient for 13 days in the hospital, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,600/- as compensation towards bystander expenses at the rate of Rs.200/- per day, as against an amount of Rs.2,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.500/- as compensation under the said count. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the clothes worn by the appellant might have been torn and damaged. Therefore, we are granting an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards damage to clothings as against an amount of Rs.300/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.700/- under the said count. Having regard to the nature of injuries, we are granting an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards pain and sufferings as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.12,000/- under the said count. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.8,000/- under the said count. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.700/- under the said count. Having regard to the nature of injuries, we are granting an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards pain and sufferings as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.12,000/- under the said count. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.8,000/- under the said count. Taking into account of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature of treatment undergone by the appellant as is revealed from paragraph 10 of the award and the period of treatment undergone by the appellant as inpatient in the hospital, we are of the view that the appellant had suffered loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for some period. Therefore, we are granting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, as against an amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.14,200/- (Rupees fourteen thousand two hundred only) as additional compensation. The above amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. We also make it clear that the appellant is also entitled to the entire compensation assessed by the Tribunal without deducting any amount. The third respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation with interest before the Tribunal, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to state that the third respondent shall also deposit the compensation if any, with interest to be deposited by the third respondent, to satisfy the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal within the above said period. In the result, this appeal stands disposed of as above.