An unproved certificate cannot overturn negligence established by admissible evidence of sudden braking.

Nagarajan died on 12 January 2020 from injuries sustained in a motor accident on 31 December 2019, while travelling as a passenger in the appellant-Transport Corporation’s bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-7351.

The claimants alleged that the bus driver drove rashly and negligently, applied the brakes suddenly, and caused Nagarajan to fall onto the engine bonnet, resulting in grievous injuries and subsequent death.

The appellant denied negligence and contended that Nagarajan, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and using a mobile phone, lost his balance and fell independently.

The Claims Tribunal examined two witnesses for the claimants and one witness for the Transport Corporation, and considered the documentary evidence.

It found that the accident resulted solely from the negligence of the bus driver and awarded compensation of ₹21,24,000, after assessing the deceased’s notional monthly income at ₹14,600.

The Transport Corporation challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, principally on the issue of negligence.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal was correct in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant’s bus driver?

2. Whether the appellant could rely on an unmarked and unproved medical certificate to establish that the deceased was intoxicated and solely responsible for the accident?

3. Whether the compensation award of ₹21,24,000 required interference in the appeal?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In a motor accident claim, negligence and causation may be established on the basis of the evidence on record, including the testimony of the vehicle driver, the police final report, and medical or post-mortem records.

A party cannot rely on a document that was neither marked nor proved in accordance with law; merely placing such a document in the typed set does not make it admissible or usable for overturning a factual finding.

The owner of the offending vehicle is liable for compensation arising from the negligence of its driver.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding because the appellant’s own witness, RW1—the bus driver—admitted that he had applied the brakes suddenly, causing Nagarajan to fall onto the engine bonnet.

This admission was corroborated by the police final report filed against the driver under Exhibit P15.

The post-mortem report issued by Sri Ramachandra Hospital recorded that Nagarajan died from complications arising from injuries to his left lower limb, thereby supporting the causal connection between the accident and death.

Although the appellant produced a certificate stating that the deceased was intoxicated and aggressive, the certificate had not been marked or proved before the Tribunal.

The High Court therefore refused to rely on it and held that the appellant had failed to establish that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident.

As no other ground was pursued, the Court found no basis to interfere with either the finding of negligence or the award.

The Transport Corporation was directed to deposit ₹21,24,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, within twelve weeks from receipt of the web order, if not already deposited.

The claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest in accordance with the apportionment ordered by the Tribunal.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.