are negligent. Even if one of the drivers is a little bit more careful, there would be some possibility of averting the accident. The drivers of both the offending vehicles were not examined; they are the best persons to speak about the manner of the accident. In the absence of their evidence, the Tribunal has given prominence to the evidence of PW.1, who sustained injuries in the accident. There is every possibility for PW.1 to witness the accident in question. As already observed, the petitioner concerning sustaining injuries is evident by Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 documents. There is nothing on the record to show what happened in criminal court based on the charge sheet filed by the police. But based on the allegations made by the police in the charge sheet, no finding can be given unless the same is proved by admissible evidence. It is not safe to accept the allegations made in the charge sheet as accurate when more particularly, no evidence is let in on behalf of the respondents and, on the other hand, the petitioner who sustained an injury in the accident and RW.2 who investigated the case deposed that the accident occurred due to collision of both the vehicles. If such an allegation made in the charge sheet is accepted without any corroborative evidence, it amounts to accepting the contents of the charge sheet without any evidence. Because the police chargesheeted against the jeep driver, it cannot presume the allegations therein are true. The charge sheet allegations have to be proved by adducing oral evidence. The contents of the FIR or charge sheet can not take as conclusive proof by ignoring the evidence of the victim and investigating officer.
