Negligence cannot be attributed to the bus driver where the tanker driver alone was charge-sheeted.

A collision on 16 January 2008 involved a bus, tanker, tipper and truck, causing deaths and serious injuries among the bus occupants.

The Tribunal attributed negligence in the ratio of 10% to the bus driver, 70% to the tanker driver, and 10% each to the tipper and truck drivers.

The bus’s insurer, Reliance General Insurance, appealed the finding of negligence against the bus driver.

The tanker’s insurer also appealed, but only on quantum.

Police had charge-sheeted only the tanker driver; the tanker driver, though available, was not examined by the tanker’s insurer.

Whether the bus driver could be held responsible for the accident, and whether the Tribunal’s attribution of 10% negligence to that driver should stand.

The Court relied on Mangla Ram v. The Oriental Insurance Company, (2018) 5 SCC 656, for the principle that the laying of a charge-sheet is prima facie proof that the person charged was responsible for the accident.

The Court also treated the failure to examine the available driver—the best evidence on the circumstances of the accident—as relevant to whether negligence could be attributed to other drivers.

No statutory provision was identified as the basis of the decision.

The police charge-sheeted only the tanker driver, and the tanker’s insurer did not call that driver to establish that the bus driver or other drivers had also contributed to the accident.

The Court therefore held that negligence could not be attributed to the bus driver.

It rejected reliance on the bus occupants’ accounts because they could not reliably have observed the entire accident, and noted that the panchnama’s signatories were not eyewitnesses.

The Court confined its determination to negligence between the bus and tanker drivers, leaving the findings concerning the tipper and truck undisturbed.

It did not determine the negligence attributed to the tipper or truck drivers.

Pending applications were consigned to the records, court fees were directed to be refunded if applicable, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the concerned court.