JUDGMENT : Aggarwal, J. 1. The Union of India and the Principal, Nautical Engineering College, Bombay, are the Appellants. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay, has passed an award against them fur a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application till payment and costs of Rs. 30/-. The Appellants are also directed to pay Rs. 200/- as compensatory costs for taking a defence which could not be substantiated. 2. The brief facts are that on 11th May, 1967 at about 7.30 p.m., one Yeshwant Babajirao Surve was riding on a bicycle on Dr. B.A. Road, Lalbuug, Bombay. At the junction of Sane Guruji Marg and Dr. B.A. Road, a traffic constable was controlling the traffic. The constable signalled the south bound traffic to stop. Thereupon the cycle rider proceeded to his right and took a right turn to go towards Sane Guruji Marg. The bus belonging to the Appellants also followed in the same direction by taking a right turn to go towards Sane Guruji Marg. During this stage, the bus, while overtaking other vehicle, hit the cycle rider. As a result of the impact, the cycle rider suffered injuries and subsequently died in the hospital on the same day. 3. On behalf of the deceased, his wife aged 28 years and two daughters aged 3 and 5 and one son aged 6 months filed the present application for compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. 4. The Appellants resisted the claim and denied the case sought to be made out by the Applicants. The Appellant's case was that the driver of the bus was driving on the correct side of the road at a moderate speed, but the deceased was heavily drunk and riding his bicycle rashly, negligently and with complete disregard for the traffic. The deceased dashed against the bus while negotiating a turn to the right. 5. On behalf of the Respondents-Applicants, one eye-witness named Dnyeshwar Shivram Meher was examined besides other witnesses to prove the pecuniary loss. On behalf of the Appellants, the bus driver, Premsingh Gulabsingh Dasuni, was examined. The Tribunal held that the evidence of eye-witness Dnyeshwar was acceptable, notwithstanding the infirmities in his evidence. The evidence of the bus driver Dasuni disclosed that he was negligent in driving the bus at the material time. On behalf of the Appellants, the bus driver, Premsingh Gulabsingh Dasuni, was examined. The Tribunal held that the evidence of eye-witness Dnyeshwar was acceptable, notwithstanding the infirmities in his evidence. The evidence of the bus driver Dasuni disclosed that he was negligent in driving the bus at the material time. The Tribunal also criticized the Appellants for choosing to set up a defence which they could not substantiate. 6. Mr. Hombalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants, has taken me through the evidence and submitted that the evidence of witness Dnyeshwar is not reliable and he is not a natural witness. He is a got-up witness and his evidence should have, therefore, been wholly discarded by the Tribunal. The infirmities pointed out by Mr. Hombalkar are: (i) statement of the witness was not recorded by the police (ii) the witness stated that the injured was removed in a taxi whereas the evidence of the bus driver Premsingh shows that the injured was removed in his bus; and (iii) the witness was traced about 10 days before giving evidence and he came to Court without being served with a witness summons. Now, the witness did not know the injured and his say was that after seeing the accident, he went away. This conduct is open to criticism. One could have expected him to help the injured or to report to the police, but such a conduct would be of an ideal citizen. The witness also tells us that he had seen the police constable stopping a taxi and from that he inferred that the injured was removed in a taxi. He had not actually seen the injured being removed in a taxi. His say was that he was contacted by the 1st Respondent when she was making inquiries about any person having witnessed the accident and it is at that stage that he came forward to give evidence. This, no doubt, appears to be somewhat improbable. These circumstances do require the Court to accept his evidence with caution. The Tribunal, while, appreciating the evidence, was mindful of these infirmities but in its opinion, the witness did not appear to be an interested witness. Moreover, his credibility could not be shaken in the cross-examination. This, no doubt, appears to be somewhat improbable. These circumstances do require the Court to accept his evidence with caution. The Tribunal, while, appreciating the evidence, was mindful of these infirmities but in its opinion, the witness did not appear to be an interested witness. Moreover, his credibility could not be shaken in the cross-examination. I do not think that the Tribunal has committed any serious error in the appreciation of the evidence that I should impose my view on re-appreciation. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proof of negligence does not rest on the sole evidence of witness Dnyeshwar. The Appellant's bus driver Premsingh seems to have broken down in cross-examination as he admitted that while taking a turn his vehicle hit the deceased from the hind. Witness Dnyeshwar had testified to the same cause for the accident. According to him also, the bus hit the cycle rider from the hind. Witness Premsingh in examination-in-chief first stated that the rider on the cycle came suddenly from the left-hand side in front of his vehicle and took a right turn and the left side of the bus hit him. In cross-examination, he stated that he saw the rider for the first time after the impact. He saw the cyclist after he fell down. In answer to a question from the Court, he stated that he saw the rider for the first time after he was knocked down. In this state of evidence and having regard to the unanimity between witness Dnyeshwar and witness Premsingh that the cycle rider was hit by the bus from the hind, the negligence of the bus driver in driving the bus is manifest. Further it has to be borne in mind that there were about SO sailors in the bus at the time of the accident, but none of them has been examined. Thus, having regard to the nature of the evidence, the submission of Mr. Hombalkar has no merit and the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of the accident having been caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus deserves to be confirmed. 7. No other point having been raised, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Thus, having regard to the nature of the evidence, the submission of Mr. Hombalkar has no merit and the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of the accident having been caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus deserves to be confirmed. 7. No other point having been raised, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Before concluding, however, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal has rightly applied the newly added Section 110-CCC, which was added to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by Section 62 of the Amending Act 56 of 1969. This provision came into force from 2nd March, 1970. This provision empowers any Court or Claims Tribunal, adjudicating upon any claim for compensation under the Act, where it is satisfied, inter alia that any party or insurer has put forward a false or vexatious claim or defence, to make an order for the payment by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of special costs by way of compensation to the party against whom such claim or defence has been put forward. The limit of special powers is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. The Appellants, in their written-statement, had taken the defence that the accident was caused by the deceased, who was heavily drunk and was riding the bicycle rashly, negligently and with complete disregard to the traffic and the deceased had dashed against the bus. This circumstance was not testified before the Court either by the bus driver or any other person on behalf of the Appellants. The written-statement was verified by the Office Superintendent of the 2nd Appellant. The bus driver was specifically cross-examined in this connection and he stated that he had told the Office Superintendent how the accident occurred. In this state of things, I think, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the Appellants with special costs by way of compensation to the extent of Rs. 200/-. The provision is intended to deter a claimant or a Respondent or the insurer from putting forward false or vexatious claims or defences. If these provisions of Section 110-CCC are borne in mind, as done in the present case, a party would be discouraged from putting forward false or vexatious claim or defence and thereby save public time and expedite the settlement of claims and payment of compensation. 9. The appeal is dismissed with costs.