The need for substantive evidence to prove negligence in motor vehicle accident cases and the importance of fair compensation for victims.

1. Being aggrieved by the finding regarding negligence and the quantum of compensation of `64,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the State Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal.

2. It is the case of the Respondent/Claimant that on 11.5.1997, when he was riding a TVS-50, bearing Registration No.TN-01-D-1425, slowly and cautiously, a Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-0182, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, which came from behind, knocked him down and in the result, he sustained crush injury in the left thigh, injury in the head, dislocation of knee and other bodily injuries. He was treated as inpatient between 11.5.1997 & 25.5.1997. PW.2, Doctor, who examined the Respondent/Claimant, with reference to Ex.P1-Discharge Summary, dated 25.5.1997 and Ex.P4-X-Ray, assessed the disability of 40%. According to the Respondent/Claimant, he was a TV mechanic and due to the injuries and treatment, he lost his earning capacity.

3. Disputing the manner of accident, the Appellant-State Transport Corporation has contended that on 11.5.1997, When the above said bus was proceeding slowly on the Bracer Road, near Broadway bus stand to Chunambedu from Chennai, the Respondent/Claimant tried to overtake the bus and in the result, the motorcycle hit the rear portion of the right side of the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. The Transport Corporation further submitted that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent of the Respondent/Claimant. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, income and the compensation claimed under various heads.

4. Before, the Tribunal, the Respondent/Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW.2, is the Doctor, Ex.P1-Discharge Summary, issued by the Government Hospital, Ex.P2-True copy of the driving licence, Ex.P3-Disability Certificate and Ex.P4-X-ray were marked on the side of the Respondent/Claimant. RW.1 is the driver of the bus owned by the Appellant-Transport Corporation. On behalf of the Appellant-Transport Corporation, Ex.R1-True copy of the FIR was marked.

5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and quantified the compensation at `64,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as apportioned hereunder:

6. Inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of Ex.R1-FIR, Mr. G. Muniratnam, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that on the basis of the Complaint given by a passenger, who travelled in the bus, a Criminal case was registered against the Respondent/Claimant and when the oral testimony of RW.1, driver of the bus is corroborated by Ex.R1-FIR, the finding of the Tribunal, solely based on the oral evidence of PW.1, not supported by oral or documentary evidence, is erroneous and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, holding that the rider of TVS-50 as responsible for the accident, by applying the Principles of Preponderance of Probability. He further submitted that the impact on the rear side of the right side of the bus, with the motorcycle would have come to light, had the Respondent/Claimant marked the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report. The omission to place the said document would clearly show that the Respondent/Claimant has intentionally suppressed the fact, regarding the manner of accident.

7. Placing reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Nandakumar v. M.D. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, 1996 (1) CTC 505 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premalatha Shukla, 2007 (2) TN MAC 106 (SC) : 2007 ACJ 1928, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is sine qua non for maintaining a Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that exce