Negligence in vehicle operation is demonstrated when a tyre rolls off, establishing liability for compensation without needing direct evidence from the claimant as per the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issue revolves around two questions: (1) whether the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle causing injury to a pedestrian constitutes negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle, and (2) whether a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), is maintainable?

2. This appeal has been filed by the Director General of Police and the Kerala State Insurance Department, who were respondents 1 and 3 in OP(MV) No.1872 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the claimant and the second respondent respectively before the tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case of the claimant before the tribunal are as follows: On 28.08.2010, while the claimant, a house wife aged 64 years, was waiting at the Edappally Toll bus stop at Ernakulam, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-01/X 9463 driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and when it reached the place of occurrence, the rear left tyre of the said jeep was thrown out and hit the claimant, whereby she sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

4. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.X1 as court exhibit. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,46,818/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The State/respondents 1 & 3 have come up in appeal, challenging the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

5. I have heard in detail the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant.

6. The learned Government Pleader assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the claimant has not adduced any evidence to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Government Pleader also argued, though it is not raised as a ground in the memorandum of appeal, that the claim petition ought to have been filed under Section 163A of the Act and not under Section 166. The quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under different heads is also under challenge.

7. The learned Government Pleader argued that the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle was not due to any negligence on the part of the driver, but a mechanical defect; and hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver; and the duty was cast upon the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle to get compensation. To substantiate the above contentions, the learned Government Pleader relied on the judgments of the apex court in Kaushnuma Begum & others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2001 (1) KLT 408 , Surinder Kumar Arora & another v. Dr. Manoj Bisla & others, AIR 2012 SC 1918 .

8. Per contra, the learne