The judgment establishes the principle that negligence in motor accident cases can be determined based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant if the claimant has prima facie proved the manner of the accident.

S.Manikumar, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the appellant State Transport Corporation bus, bearing registration No.TN 32 N 3285, involved in the accident, causing multiple injuries to the respondent, later on found to have suffered permanent disablement, resulting in assessment of loss of future earning capacity. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.23,71,500/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim till deposit, under various heads.

2. Facts of the case, as deduced from the material available on record, are as follows :

On 30.04.2011 about 19.00 hours, while the respondent was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 09 BF 8013, and proceeding at Kathipara Over Bridge, Guindy, Chennai, the appellant State Transport Corporation bus, bearing registration No.TN 32 N 3285, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and thereby, the respondent sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in amputation of his right leg below knee, fracture D12 paraplegia, injury in sacral, resulting in urological problem and head injury. In this regard, a case in Crime No.800 of 2011 has been registered against the driver of the appellant bus, on the file of St.Thomos Mount Police Station, Chennai.

3. Material on record further discloses that the respondent was treated in various hospitals and he suffered amputation. He claimed a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-under various heads. The appellant Corporation, in its counter affidavit, disputed negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. According to the Corporation, it was due to the rash and negligent riding of the the motorcyclist, the accident occurred. He did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and, that is why, he did not implead the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle. Without prejudice to the above, the Transport Corporation disputed the age, occupation, monthly income of the respondent, alleged nature of injuries, period of treatment, medical expenses and the alleged disability. The Corporation further submitted that there was no loss of earning capacity for the respondent. For the said reasons, the Corporation prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and narrated the manner of accident, and explained how he had suffered injuries, resulting in the loss of earning capacity. P.W.2, doctor, who clinically examined the respondent with documents and assessed the extent of disablement, supported the version of the injured. Ex.P-1 Copy of FIR; Ex.P-2 Discharge Summary; Ex.P-3 Photograph with CD; Exs.P-4 and P-5 Discharge Summaries; Ex.P-6 Medical Bills; Ex.P-7 Continuous treatment record; Ex.P-8 Salary Certificate; Ex.P-9 Copy of Family Card; Ex.P-10 Work Sheet and Ex.P-11 Disability Certificate, issued by P.W.2, have been marked by the respondent/claimant. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the appellant Corporation.

5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the appellant Corporation bus alone was negligent in causing the accident. Having regard to the oral testimony of P.W.1, injured, and P.W.2, doctor, who assessed the extent of disablement, and after considering the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.23,71,500/-under various heads, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till deposit, and costs, as under :