A claimant cannot recover under Section 166 without establishing the offending driver’s negligence.

The appellant claimed that a KSRTC bus, driven by the first respondent, negligently collided with his motorcycle on 16 March 2017, causing injuries that resulted in amputation of his right leg.

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the appellant had ridden onto the wrong side of the road and collided with the rear portion of the bus.

The appellant appealed, challenging the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence, including the eyewitness testimony and police records

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant had failed to establish that the accident was caused by the first respondent’s rash or negligent driving

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the compensation claim warranted appellate interference

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires a claimant seeking compensation to establish that the accident was caused by the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle

An appellate court may interfere with the Tribunal’s factual findings where they disclose error or perversity; the judgment states that the Tribunal’s finding must be assessed against the evidence on record

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding after considering the appellant’s admission that his motorcycle struck the bus’s rear tyre, the sketch showing the accident on the wrong side of the road, and the vehicle inspection report recording damage to the bus’s rear right-side wheel arch and the motorcycle’s front

It found that the eyewitness’s evidence did not materially alter the evidentiary picture and that the charge-sheet, considered with the other evidence, did not establish the bus driver’s negligence

The serious injury and amputation did not, without proof of the required negligence, establish entitlement to compensation under the claim

It dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs