The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish negligence on the part of the driver to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi impugns the judgment dated 10.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.1,70,296/-was awarded for the death of Vinod Kumar Joshi who was aged about 23 years and a bachelor at the time of the accident, which occurred on 31.10.2001. No Cross Appeal/Cross Objections have been filed by the First Respondent.

2. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) The Claims Tribunal failed to record any finding on negligence, yet decided the issue of negligence against the Appellant; and

(ii) There was no proof of the deceased’s income; his income was taken as per minimum wages of an unskilled worker but were increased by 50% towards the future prospects without any basis.

3. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of First Respondent that the negligence was duly proved from PW-2’s testimony. The compensation awarded was very low.

4. On the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal held as under:-

“9. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The petitioner has claimed that it had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle. Though, respondent No.1 has denied his negligence, it is admitted that a case of rash and negligent driving was instituted against him. It has been further been proved though the deposition of PW2 and the MLC/Medical record, that the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

Issue No.1 is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner.”

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Claims Tribunal returned the finding on the issue of negligence simply on the ground that the factum of accident was not disputed as a case for rash and negligent driving was instituted against the Appellant’s driver. To say the least, the entire approach of the Claims Tribunal was against the basic principles of liability under the law of Torts.

6. There are cases where there is direct evidence on negligence. At the same time, there may be cases where negligence would be inferred against the driver of the vehicle from indirect or circumstantial evidence. The registration of a criminal case always depends upon the assessment and discretion of the Investigating Officer. If two vehicles are involved in an accident, the driver of one of them may be negligent or both of them may be negligent. Similarly, even in case of a pedestrian, he himself may be solely responsible or have contributed to the accident. Of late, some of the Claims Tribunal do not discuss the issue of negligence and hold the driver liable simply on account of registration of a criminal case against him. The registration of a criminal case, subject to certain exceptions, may be taken as sufficient proof of involvement of the vehicle in the accident but not as a proof of the negligence.

7. ‘Negligence’ is failure to take proper care, a reasonable man would have done under the circumstances. There may be cases where an inference of negligence could be derived from the manner in which the accident takes place. For instance, where a motor vehicle goes up the pavement and strike against a pedestrian; or the tyre of a motor vehicle bursts, it loses control and collides against a pedestrian or the said vehicle turning turtle causing injuries to the passengers, or when a motor vehicle moving on a bridge collided against a railing and falls into a Canal. In such cases, the principles of strict liability as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher [1861-73] All E.R. 1 would be applicable. The applicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur was explained by the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1977 SC 1735. It was observed that in certain situation there is hardship for the Plaintiff to prove the manner of the accident. In such cases applying the principles of “res ipsa” the onus to prove how the accident hap