Madras High Court· 24 July 2026
What weight does the evidence of a transport corporation's own driver carry when no independent witness is examined?
The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Karanthai Depot, Thanjavur v. Thenmozhi
C.M.A(MD)No.849 of 2026 · C.M.A(MD)No.849 of 2026
Coram: Justice K.Murali Shankar
Answer
Little. Where the Corporation examines only its driver, does not examine the conductor or any other independent witness said to have seen the occurrence, produces nothing to corroborate his version, and has taken no step to complain that the criminal case registered against him was false, the Tribunal is right to act on the unshaken evidence of the occurrence witness examined by the claimants.
Headnote
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Contributory negligence — Non-wearing of helmet — Rash and negligent driving — Corroboration —
Contributory negligence — Non-wearing of helmet — No evidence of negligent riding —
Held: Contributory negligence cannot be apportioned on the sole ground that the deceased wore no helmet, absent evidence of negligent riding; even fatal head injuries do not automatically lead to an inference of contributory negligence. (¶10, ¶11)
Rash and negligent driving — Driver's version uncorroborated — Conductor not examined —
Held further: Where the occurrence witness stands unshaken in cross-examination and the Corporation examines only its driver, without the conductor or any independent witness, the finding of rash and negligent driving does not warrant interference. Appeal dismissed. (¶8, ¶13)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 7It is pertinent to note that on the basis of the complaint lodged, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.300 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C., on the file of the Orathanadu Police Station against the bus driver. As already pointed out, the claimants examined the occurrence witness as P.W.2 and he deposed about the manner of the accident. P.W.2 has stated that while he was standing in a shop near Anna statue, the two wheeler was proceeding from East to West and at that time, the Corporation bus which came from South to North in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler and that the bus driver alone was responsible for the accident. Though P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing was elicited by the respondents' side in their favour and the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the mode of accident remains unshaken.
Paragraph 8As already pointed out, the respondent Corporation examined its driver as R.W.1, who deposed reiterating the defence taken in the counter statement. It is not the case of either R.W.1 or the respondent Corporation that they had preferred any complaint before the higher police authorities alleging that a false case had been registered against R.W.1, nor have they shown that any other action was taken in that regard. As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent has not chosen to examine the conductor of the bus or any other independent witness who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence, and there is no other evidence to support the version of R.W.1. On an overall consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, and the said finding does not warrant any interference.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Karanthai Depot, Thanjavur v. Thenmozhi — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →