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.919/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 14/11/2018. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners and respondents 1 & 2 respectively in the petition. Cross Objection No.40 of 2021 has been filed by the claim petitioners. In this appeal and the cross objection, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. The claim petitioners are the parents and sister of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners on 04/11/2015 at about 10:30 a.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-07-CC-5504 through Kanjiramattom-Puthenkavu road and when he reached the place by name Kanjiramattom, lorry bearing registration No.KL-32-C-9467 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. 3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation and income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A23 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. 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 offending lorry resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 19,59,400/- together with interest @ 9% 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. 7. 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. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal. 7. 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. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the light of Exts.A1 FIR ; A4 final report/charge sheet and A9 scene mahazar, the Tribunal erred in relying on the interested testimony of PW2 and finding negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. Ext.A9 scene mahazar will clearly show that the deceased had strayed into the wrong side of the road, which would make it apparent that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent herein. On the other hand, the negligence was on the part of the deceased. As negligence has not been established by the claim petitioners, the third respondent/insurer cannot be held liable, goes the argument. 9.1. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners who have filed cross objection, that Ext.A4 final report was prepared casually without any proper investigation being conducted by the police. Ext.A9 scene mahazar cannot be relied on as the person who prepared the same or the person who pointed out the scene of occurrence to the police was not examined by the third respondent/insurer. It is also pointed out that the claim petitioners had filed I.A.No.1/2025 for receiving an additional document, that is, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness who had pointed out the scene of occurrence to the police. A reading of the statement would make it clear that the said witness had not seen the incident and hence he could not have pointed out the scene of occurrence to the police. There were no tyre marks on the road. There is no explanation as to how the police concluded that the scene of occurrence is the spot referred to in Ext.A9 scene mahazar. Therefore, the argument is that Ext.A9 scene mahazar cannot be relied on to find that the deceased was negligent or that he had contributed to the accident. There were no tyre marks on the road. There is no explanation as to how the police concluded that the scene of occurrence is the spot referred to in Ext.A9 scene mahazar. Therefore, the argument is that Ext.A9 scene mahazar cannot be relied on to find that the deceased was negligent or that he had contributed to the accident. Further, the claim petitioners examined PW2, an eye witness, whose testimony has not been discredited and therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that it was the second respondent/driver who was rash and negligent resulting in the accident and hence no interference is called for, goes the argument. 9.2. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal , 2011 (3) KHC 595 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. 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. 9.3. In the case on hand, Ext.A1 FIR shows that immediately after the accident which occurred on 04/11/2015 at 10:30 hours, crime no.979/2015, Mulanthuruthy police station was registered at 13:10 hours on the same day. A reading of the FIR shows that the FIS had been given by a close relative of the deceased, namely, the grandson of the informant's maternal aunt. In the FIS, the informant does not have a case that there was any negligence on the part of any other vehicle(s). On the other hand, it is stated thus: 9.4. This translated roughly reads -Today (04/11/2015) at 10:30 a.m. when the informant's mother's sister's grandson, Mrithyunjayan, 22 years old, son of Rajan, Karikavelil house, Olippuram Thekkakkare, Arayankavu Karayil, Kulaitikkara village, was riding motorcycle bearing registration number KL 07 CC 5504 from east to west through Kanjiramattom Pathankavu public road, he accidentally collided with mini lorry bearing registration number KL 32 C 9467, coming from the opposite side as a result of which he was thrown to the road whereby he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. Therefore, right from the beginning, nobody had a case that it was the negligence of driver of another vehicle that resulted in the accident. 9.5. The police on completion of investigation submitted Ext.A4 final report before the jurisdictional magistrate in which the conclusion of the investigating officer is that it was only a 'motor occurrence'. Therefore, the police also after investigation has no case that there was any negligence on the part of the second respondent herein. 9.6. Now coming to Ext.A9 scene mahazar. Admittedly the road at the place of occurrence is lying in the east-west direction. The deceased was riding his motorbike from the east towards west and the second respondent, the lorry driver, was driving from the west to east. 9.6. Now coming to Ext.A9 scene mahazar. Admittedly the road at the place of occurrence is lying in the east-west direction. The deceased was riding his motorbike from the east towards west and the second respondent, the lorry driver, was driving from the west to east. So the right side of the road of the deceased was the southern side of the road and the right side of the second respondent, the northern side of the road. As per Ext.A9 scene mahazar, the tarred portion of the road is having a width of 5.60 mtrs. There is a white line on the road dividing the road into two halves. The tarred portion of the road on the northern side of the white line is 2.90 mtrs wide and the tarred portion of the road on the southern side of white line is 2.70 mtrs. The scene of occurrence is stated to be 2.70 mtrs from the northern tar end. This would show that it was the deceased who had strayed to the wrong side, that is, the northern side of the road. The scene mahazar supports the opinion of the investigating officer in Ext.A4 final report that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent herein. Now the question is whether there is any materials on record to show that Exts.A1, A4 and A9 are wrong/false and whether the claim petitioners have succeeded in establishing negligence on the part of the second respondent. 10. The claim petitioners in order to establish their case of negligence on the part of the second respondent herein, examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is none other than the first claim petitioner, the father of the deceased. PW1 admits that he had not seen the incident. Therefore, his testimony is of no help to decide regarding the scene of occurrence. Nevertheless, one aspect that needs to be noted is that the FIR, the final report and the scene mahazar were marked as Exts.A1, A4 and A9 respectively through PW1 who does not have a case that the FIR or the scene mahazar is wrong or that the scene mahazar was prepared on the basis of the statement of a person who had never witnessed the incident. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver despite receipt of summons from the Tribunal, chose to remain ex parte. They had also not filed any written statement. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver despite receipt of summons from the Tribunal, chose to remain ex parte. They had also not filed any written statement. Therefore, neither the owner nor the driver contested the matter nor challenged Exts.A1, A4 and A9. 11. Here, it would be apposite to refer to the proof affidavit of PW1 filed in lieu of chief examination. In paragraph 2 he avers thus - “1. … … … 2. ….......For the company purpose he was riding a motorcycle KL-07-CC-5504 from east to west through the left side of Kanjiramattom-Puthenkavu road, which lies in east-west direction. His D/L is 39/876/2013 and it is valid up to 17-2-2033. He was riding slowly observing all the rules and regulations of the road. At the place of accident, the offending lorry KL-32-C-9467 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner, trespassed to the wrong side and the front right side of the lorry hit on the motorcycle of the deceased. … … ...” (Emphasis supplied) I also refer to the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination by PW2, who is stated to be an eye witness. In paragraph no.2 he avers thus - “I have seen the accident on 4.11.2015 at 10.30 a.m. at Kanjiramattam. The deceased in the accident was riding a motorcycle KL-07-CC-5504 from east to west through the left side of Kanjiramattam – Puthenkavu road, which lies in east – west direction. He was riding with helmet on head and observing all the rules and regulation of the road. At the place of the accident, the offending lorry KL- 32-C-9467 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner, trespassed to the wrong side and hit on the motorcycle of the deceased.” (Emphasis supplied) Which is the “place of accident” referred to by PWs.1 and 2 in their proof affidavit? The same has not been clarified either in the chief or in the cross examination. Is the “place of accident” the scene of occurrence as stated in Ext.A9 ? It is here the proof affidavit of PW1 again needs to be looked into. The sixth paragraph of the proof affidavit reads thus - “6. The same has not been clarified either in the chief or in the cross examination. Is the “place of accident” the scene of occurrence as stated in Ext.A9 ? It is here the proof affidavit of PW1 again needs to be looked into. The sixth paragraph of the proof affidavit reads thus - “6. In order to prove and establish our case the following documents produced may be marked as exhibits A1 to A23.” (Emphasis supplied) Exts.A1, A4 and A9 among the marked documents as noticed earlier are the FIR ; the final report and the scene mahazar in the crime. Ext.A1, A4 and A9 were marked and brought in evidence by the claim petitioners themselves to establish their case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that it is well settled that mere marking of a document(s) will not prove its contents and therefore, merely because the FIR, final report and scene mahazar were marked through PW1, the same would in no way go against the case of the claim petitioners. 12. In the appeal memorandum, reference has been made to the dictum of a Division Bench of this Court in Philippose Cherian v. T.A. Edward Lobo , 1991 ACJ 634 which answers the argument advanced by the claim petitioner. It has been observed that a scene mahazar is most often, if not in all cases, prepared by the investigating officer during investigation of the crime. In motor accident cases, scene mahazar is prepared by the police officer while investigating into offences disclosed in the first information report. A police officer is a public servant and the scene mahazar is a record made in discharge of his official duties. The entries in such record are themselves relevant facts under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the certified copy of scene mahazar is marked without objection, the admissible portions therein can be used by the Tribunal if none of the parties disputes the correctness thereof. It is open to the party who disputes the correctness of such entries to examine anyone connected with the document for showing that the entries are unreliable. Subject to this and subject to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunals are legally competent to make use of the entries in scene mahazar even if no person connected with its making has been examined as a witness. 13. Subject to this and subject to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunals are legally competent to make use of the entries in scene mahazar even if no person connected with its making has been examined as a witness. 13. PW1 as noticed earlier has no case that Exts.A1 FIR or A9 scene mahazar has been wrongly prepared. It is true that in his proof affidavit, he has stated that though the police registered a crime, the latter did not conduct investigation in the proper manner and due to the influence of the owner and driver of the offending lorry, the police has referred the case as accidental and that the refer report is incorrect. A mere statement in the proof affidavit that the final report is incorrect or wrong or that the police had not properly conducted investigation is not sufficient in the absence of any other materials to substantiate the allegation of the claim petitioners. It is true that nobody was examined to prove Ext.A9 scene mahazar. However, when PW1 himself had no challenge regarding the documents that were marked through him, then the question of proving the same does not arise. Moreover, in the light of the dictum in Philippose Cherian (Supra), this argument is liable to be rejected. 14. I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the claim petitioners for receiving the additional document, namely, the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness who pointed out the scene of occurrence to the police is received in evidence and marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 the witness has stated that he went to the scene of occurrence hearing the voice of vehicles colliding. When he reached the spot, he saw the deceased on the road lying injured. The motorcycle was lying nearby. The lorry was also parked nearby. The witness arrived at the spot soon after the incident. It is true that no tyre marks have been noted in the scene mahazar. However, nobody has a case that either the deceased or the second respondent had applied sudden brake and that the same caused any marks on the road. The accident occurred on 04/11/2015 at 10:30 a.m. Ext.A9 scene mahazar is seen prepared on the same day at 04:00 p.m. The testimony of PWs.1 and 2 are not sufficient to discredit or disprove the FIR, charge sheet or the scene mahazar. The accident occurred on 04/11/2015 at 10:30 a.m. Ext.A9 scene mahazar is seen prepared on the same day at 04:00 p.m. The testimony of PWs.1 and 2 are not sufficient to discredit or disprove the FIR, charge sheet or the scene mahazar. In these circumstances with the available materials on record, it is not possible to conclude that there was negligence on the part of the second respondent herein. In an application under Section 166 of the Act, when negligence is not established, the claim petitioners cannot succeed. The Tribunal went wrong in holding that the second respondent was negligent and passing the impugned Award. Therefore, interference into the same is required and hence I do so. In the result, the appeal and cross objection are disposed of as stated herein above.