JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. 1. 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.1630/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 21/05/2018. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 29/10/2008 at about 04:30 p.m., while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-01/P-2533 through Varkala-Kallabmbalam road and when he reached near Narikallu junction, car bearing registration No. KL-16/D-7332 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-02/F-4843. The second respondent lost control of his vehicle and hit his motorcycle, as a result of which he was thrown on to the road, whereby he sustained grievous injuries. 3. The first respondent/owner of the car; the second respondent/driver of the car; the fifth respondent/the current owner of the autorickshaw and the sixth respondent/driver of the autorickshaw remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent/insurer of the car filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the car. 5. The fourth respondent, the registered owner of the autorickshaw filed written statement contending that there was no negligence on the part of the sixth respondent. 6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 5,40,500/- together with interest @ 7% 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. 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 is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the light of Ext.A1 FIR; A2 scene mahazar and A9 final report, the Tribunal could not have found the second respondent/driver of the car rash or negligent because the police after investigation has filed Ext.A9 final report to the effect that it was the driver of the autorickshaw, namely, the sixth respondent who was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle which resulted in the accident. The autorickshaw does not have insurance, and hence the reason why the claim petitioner has come up with a case that it was the second respondent/car driver who was responsible for the accident. In support of the argument, he relies on the dictum in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3) KHC 595 in which it has been held that the final report/charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Act. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of the testimony of PW2, which has not been discredited, the charge sheet has paled into insignificance and so the Tribunal was right in finding negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the car and hence no interference is called for. He also relies on the dictum in Pazhaniammal (Supra). 11. As noticed earlier, the case of the claim petitioner is that on the date of the accident the second respondent who was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner collided with the autorickshaw that was moving in front of him and thereafter the car lost control and hit his motorcycle, knocking him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. The road at the scene of occurrence is lying in the east-west direction. The autorickshaw driven by the sixth respondent was moving from the west towards east and going by the case of the claim petitioner, he was riding his motorcycle behind the autorickshaw. The road at the scene of occurrence is lying in the east-west direction. The autorickshaw driven by the sixth respondent was moving from the west towards east and going by the case of the claim petitioner, he was riding his motorcycle behind the autorickshaw. The car driven by the second respondent was coming from the opposite direction, that is, from east to west. As per Ext.A2 scene mahazar, the road at the scene of occurrence has a width of 8 mtrs. The right side of the claim petitioner and the autorickshaw driven by the sixth respondent was the northern side of the road and the right side of the second respondent car driver was the southern side of the road. Going by Ext.A2 scene mahazar the place of occurrence is 1.10 mtrs north of the southern road margin. This makes it clear that the second respondent/car driver was driving through his right side of the road and it was the autorickshaw and the claim petitioner who had strayed from their right side, that is, the northern side of the road into the southern side of the road. Going by Exts.A1 FIR, A2 scene mahazar and A9 final report it was the sixth respondent/autorickshaw driver who was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle resulting in the accident. The police as per Ext.A9 has charge sheeted the sixth respondent/auto rickshaw driver for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Exts. A1, A2 as well as A9 final report were marked through the claim petitioner who examined himself as PW1. PW1 has no case in the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination that none of these documents are false or fabricated or that it cannot be relied on or that no proper investigation had been conducted by the police or that a false final report has been filed against the sixth respondent/autorickshaw driver. None of these documents have been challenged by any of the parties in this case. There is no discussion in the impugned Award as to the reasons which prompted the Tribunal to ignore Ext.A9 final report. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Pazhaniammal (Supra) held that 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 Section 166 of the Act. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Pazhaniammal (Supra) held that 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 Section 166 of the 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. In case any 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 Tribunal 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 Section 166 of the Act. The Bench further held that on production of such charge sheet the shifting of burden must take place. It was further held that this would not mean that collusive charge sheets need to be accepted. If on the facts of a given case the Tribunal feels that the police charge sheet does not satisfy the judicial conscience, the Tribunal 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. 13. As noticed earlier, none of the parties in the case on hand have challenged Ext.A9 final report. The Tribunal has also not referred to Ext.A9 or given reasons as to why the said charge sheet cannot be accepted at all. At the risk of repetition, it has to be noticed that PW1 through whom the FIR ; scene mahazar and final report have been marked, has never a case that they do not reveal the true or real state of facts and that they should not be relied on. At the risk of repetition, it has to be noticed that PW1 through whom the FIR ; scene mahazar and final report have been marked, has never a case that they do not reveal the true or real state of facts and that they should not be relied on. Going by Ext.A2 scene mahazar, it can be clearly seen that the second respondent/car driver was on his right side of the road. When this was pointed out, it was submitted that it is well settled that the scene mahazar alone cannot be made a ground to find negligence on the part of the sixth respondent/autorickshaw driver. Apparently, reference is made to the dictum in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, 2013 KHC 4486 : (2013) 9 SCC 166 . In the said case, the final report supported the case of the claim petitioner therein that it was the driver of the offending vehicle who was rash and negligent resulting in the accident. However, the Tribunal relying on the scene mahazar, which revealed the position of the vehicles after the accident held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. The case of the claim petitioners therein was that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The claim petitioners also adduced oral evidence in support of their case. The insurer therein contended relying on the scene mahazar and postmortem report that the accident took place due to the negligent driving on the part of the deceased, who was in an intoxicated state. The High Court also confirmed the finding of contributory negligence by the deceased. In appeal, the Apex court noticed that neither the owner of the bus nor the driver had denied the rashness or negligence on the part of the latter. The final report that was filed by the police also stated that it was the bus driver, who was rash and negligent. The argument of the insurer based on Ext.B2 scene mahazar was rejected by the Apex Court and it was held that the mere position of the vehicles after the accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. The argument of the insurer based on Ext.B2 scene mahazar was rejected by the Apex Court and it was held that the mere position of the vehicles after the accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depend on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In the absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. 14. In the aforesaid case, it is clear that despite the final report finding the bus driver negligent, the attempt of the insurer relying on the scene mahazar was to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was in the said circumstance the Apex Court held that when the final report shows negligence on the part of the bus driver and in the absence of any other evidence to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the position of the vehicles as stated in the scene mahazar after the accident cannot be made the basis for coming into a conclusion regarding the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as Ext.A2 scene mahazar supports the finding of the investigating officer in Ext.A9 final report. 15. Now the question whether in the light of the testimony of PW2, Ext.A9 charge sheet has paled into insignificance as submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner needs to be examined. In the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, PW2, an attested eye witness, also supports the case of the claim petitioner. However, towards the end of the cross examination of PW2 by the third respondent insurer, he has stated that he had not seen the incident. In the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, PW2, an attested eye witness, also supports the case of the claim petitioner. However, towards the end of the cross examination of PW2 by the third respondent insurer, he has stated that he had not seen the incident. The readable copy of the cross examination of PW2 towards the end reads thus: “I did not see the incident in this case. You are lying to help the petitioner (Q) Not correct (A).” If that be so, the question of Ext.A9 charge sheet paling into insignificance does not arise at all. In these circumstances, I find that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring Ext.A9 charge sheet and finding that it was the second respondent/driver of the car who was responsible for the accident. Going by Ext.A9 charge sheet, it is the sixth respondent/autorickshaw driver who was responsible for the accident and hence the fourth respondent/registered owner of the autorickshaw and the sixth respondent/driver of the autorickshaw are jointly and severally held liable and the liability would be on them to pay the compensation to the claim petitioner. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the third respondent/insurer is exonerated of the liability to pay the compensation amount to the claim petitioner. It is made clear that it is the fourth respondent/registered owner and the sixth respondent/ autorickshaw driver who will be jointly and severally responsible for the award amount. This Court while granting stay, directed the third respondent/insurer to deposit 50% of the compensation amount before the Tribunal within 60 days. Pursuant to the order, the said amount was deposited and the same was released to the claim petitioner herein. The third respondent/insurer is given the liberty to recover the amount that has been disbursed to the claim petitioner pursuant to the order dated 02/11/2021. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.