Failure to examine the bus driver supports an adverse inference of negligence.

On 23 July 2007, Dayaben was struck by an ST bus while walking on Dhebarbhai Road, Rajkot, and died from her injuries.

Her heirs claimed that she was 34 years old and earned a living through masonry and labour work.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot, awarded compensation of ₹11,40,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

GSRTC appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arguing that Dayaben was walking in the middle of the road and that at least 25% contributory negligence should be attributed to her.

The claimants did not appear at the appeal hearing.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding the ST bus driver solely negligent for the accident, notwithstanding GSRTC’s contention that Dayaben was contributorily negligent.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s award should be reduced by attributing contributory negligence to Dayaben.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal an award of the Claims Tribunal.

In motor accident compensation proceedings, negligence is assessed on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; strict criminal-trial rules of evidence do not apply.

The Court relied on Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., which supports drawing an adverse inference where a driver or other relevant party does not enter the witness box to rebut allegations.

It also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, including the principle that a charge-sheet may establish a prima facie case of negligence and that a High Court should not overturn a Tribunal’s finding without applying the civil standard of proof.

The judgment further cited Prabhavathi v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, and Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. for the applicable standard of proof in motor accident claims.

The Tribunal had considered the FIR, scene panchnama and charge-sheet filed against the bus driver.

GSRTC did not examine the driver, whom the Court regarded as the best witness to explain how the accident occurred, or otherwise produce evidence establishing negligence by Dayaben.

The Court therefore upheld the adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal.

It also noted that the accident occurred on a busy city road, where the bus was expected to travel slowly, and found no material contradiction in the evidence that warranted rejecting the Tribunal’s finding.

Applying the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, the Court concluded that the evidence supported the finding that the bus driver was solely negligent; GSRTC had not established a basis to attribute contributory negligence to Dayaben.

It directed the Tribunal to disburse the awarded amount, with accrued interest, to the claimants after verification and in accordance with due procedure, and directed that the record and proceedings be returned to the Tribunal.