The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the principles of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

G. P. Mittal, J.

1. The Appellant Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) impugns a judgment dated 21.02.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 4,10,100/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.04.1996.

2. As per the case set up by the First Respondent, on 30.04.1996 she was travelling in a TSR No.DL-1RA-7004 from ISBT, Kashmere Gate to her house at Vikaspuri. At about 4:30 A.M. the autorickshaw reached near MIG flats, Rajouri Garden. A DTC bus No.DL-1P-9234 came from behind; overtook the autorickshaw and without giving any signal abruptly stopped the vehicle resulting in the TSR colliding against the rear of the bus. The First Respondent suffered multiple fractures in the right foot, patella right, clavicle and injuries on various parts of her body. She was initially removed to DDU hospital where MLC Ex.PW-2/B was prepared. She then received treatment from Dr. N.C. Joshi Memorial Hospital. She suffered 15% disability in respect of the right lower limb on account of restriction of knee movement and slight limp in walking.

3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of DTC bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,10,100/- which is tabulated hereunder:-

Sl. No.	Compensation under various heads	Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1.	Medical Expenses, Conveyance & Special Diet	Rs. 30,000/-
2.	Permanent Disability	Rs. 2,98,944/-
3.	Loss of Income	Rs. 51,150/-
4.	Pain & Suffering, Loss of Amenities of Life, Mental Shock & Pain	Rs. 30,000/-
	Total Rounded off	Rs. 4,10,094/- Rs. 4,10,100/-

4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-

(i) There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the DTC bus. The accident was caused on account of the sole negligence of TSR driver who collided with the rear of the bus. In any case, it was a case of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident.

(ii) The compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. The First Respondent was working as a Teacher in Kulachi Hansraj Model School. Her income was not affected on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, rather the same increased in due course. The Claims Tribunal ought not to have awarded her any compensation on account of loss of earning capacity.

NEGLIGENCE

5. Elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellants urges that FIR No.334/1996 was recorded on the basis of the First Respondent’s statement recorded by the police. The First Respondent attributed the negligence only on the part of TSR driver. Her claim in the Petition that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligence of the DTC bus driver was an afterthought to claim compensation from the DTC.

6. It is pleaded that the driver of the DTC examined himself as RW-1 and deposed about the manner of the accident.

7. On the other hand, the TSR driver was not produced by the First Respondent. Thus, argues the learned counsel, the Claims Tribunal fell into error in returning the finding on negligence against the Appellant’s driver.

8. In the Claim Petition it was categorically stated that the DTC bus No.DL-1P-9234 came from behind at a very fast speed and overtook the auto rickshaw. It was stated that the driver of the DTC bus suddenly applied the brakes after overtaking the TSR.

9. A joint written statement was filed by the Appellant and its driver Joginder Singh wherein it was stated that the TSR driver was solely negligent as he hit against a stationary DTC bus.

10. The First Respondent entered the witness box as PW-6 and testified to the version stated in the Claim Petition. In cross-examination,