JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.441/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant. The respondents in the O.P. are the respondents herein. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.03.2005. 2. According to the petitioner, on 12.03.2005 while he was riding the motorcycle, he was hit down by an autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, and thereby, he sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the owner cum driver of the autorickshaw and the 2 nd respondent is the insurer of the autorickshaw. Before the Tribunal, the 1 st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2 nd respondent filed a written statement disputing the involvement of the autorickshaw in the accident. It was further contended that, it was a self accident. 4. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A14 on the side of the petitioner. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the petitioner failed to prove the negligence of the 2 nd respondent. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. 8. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, and Sri.T.K.Pankajashan Pillai, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, he has produced Ext.A1 FIR and Ext.A2 charge sheet involved in Crime No.1054 of 2005, Kochi City Traffic Police Station. In Ext.A2 charge sheet, the police after investigation found that that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent. In spite of the fact that no contra evidence was adduced by the respondents, the Tribunal has discarded the charge sheet and found fault with the petitioner in not proving the negligence. Therefore, it was argued that the above finding of the Tribunal is against the law and hence liable to be interfered with. 10. In spite of the fact that no contra evidence was adduced by the respondents, the Tribunal has discarded the charge sheet and found fault with the petitioner in not proving the negligence. Therefore, it was argued that the above finding of the Tribunal is against the law and hence liable to be interfered with. 10. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would submit that in the wound certificate, the name of the autorickshaw was not mentioned. 11. Similar argument was also raised by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent. 12. However, the law is well settled that production of the final report in respect of the crime registered by the police in respect of the accident is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. (see New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Pazhaniaamal [ 2011 (3) KLT 648 ], Fazal Mahmood M.T and Others v. Rasheed C.P and Others [2015 (4) KHC 440] and Kolavan and Others v. Salim and Others [ 2018 KHC 77 ] 13. In the absence of any contrary evidence on the side of the respondents, the Tribunal ought to have acted upon Ext.A2 final report to find that the negligence was on the side of the 1 st respondent/the owner cum driver of the autorickshaw. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is against the settled law on the point, and as such the same is liable to be interfered with. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV) No.441/2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, as per law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.02.2025. Considering the fact that, this Original Petition is of the year 2006, the Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the same, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.