The principle of res ipsa loquitur can apply in determining negligence, but evidence must substantiate claims, particularly regarding the driver’s responsibility during accidents.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.2293/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by Award dated 31/10/2018. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the husband and two children of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 09/05/2014 at about 04:00 p.m., while the deceased was travelling as passenger in K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration no. KL-15/5937 and when the bus reached near Asan Square, Opposite to MLA Hostel, Thiruvananthapuram, due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent she was thrown out from the bus, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries, to which she succumbed. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The second respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The first respondent/owner filed written statement contended that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending bus and hence dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have 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 claim petitioners that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there was no material to show rashness or negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. In fact, the materials on record show negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, which aspect is quite evident from Ext.A1 final report. In the light of Ext.A1 no further evidence was required to be adduced by the claim petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased. In support of the argument reference is made to the dictums of the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan , CDJ 1974 SC 342 ; Asha Devi v. Assistant Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department , 2021 ACJ 2679; Kaushnuma Begum v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd , 2021 KHC 115 ; a Division Bench judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal , 2012 ACJ 1370 and two judgments of the Shillong Bench of the High Court of Gauhati and the High Court of Sikkim, Gangtok namely Meltina Shabong v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd , 2014 ACJ 813 and Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Dichen Bhutia , 2017 ACJ 918

9.1. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner of the bus that there is no material(s) on record to show that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. Hence, t he Tribunal was right in dismissing the application under Sectio