JUDGMENT : P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The respondent herein was driving the taxi bearing No. MRS 3566 on 1st April, 1976, at about 5 a.m. The said taxi belongs to his father. He was proceeding from Jacob Circle to Bombay Central. At that time, S.T. bus No. MHQ 7004 came from Bombay Central side and dashed against the taxi causing heavy damage to the taxi and serious personal injuries to the respondent. The respondent, therefore, claimed Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for the personal injuries. The respondent alleged that the driver of the S.T. bus was rash and/or negligent in driving the said bus. 2. The court below came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved that he has suffered serious injuries and was entitled to get Rs. 25,909/- by way of compensation. However, as the respondent has restricted his claim to Rs. 20,000/-, the said claim came to be granted. The learned Judge also held that the driver of the S.T. bus was rash and negligent in driving the S.T. bus and was responsible for the causing accident. The said judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1982, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay, Bombay, in application No. 1131 of 1976 is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant did not dispute the calculation of damages made by the court below and fairly conceded that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs. 20,000/-. He raised only one contention, i.e., the court below was not justified in holding that the driver of the S.T. bus was negligent and was responsible for the accident. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent was guilty of rash and/or negligent driving of the taxi and was responsible for the accident. The only point which arises for my consideration is whether the driver of the S.T. bus or the respondent was rash/ negligent in driving the vehicle? My answer is the driver of the S.T. bus was negligent in driving the bus, and was responsible for the accident. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the respondent was having experience of only 10 months in driving the vehicle and, therefore, he cannot be said to be an expert or an experienced driver. My answer is the driver of the S.T. bus was negligent in driving the bus, and was responsible for the accident. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the respondent was having experience of only 10 months in driving the vehicle and, therefore, he cannot be said to be an expert or an experienced driver. However, in my opinion, this cannot mean that the respondent was negligent or cannot lead to any such inference. Further, there is nothing to show about the experience of the S.T. bus driver. The respondent has entered the witness-box at Exh. 7 and has stated that he used to drive the taxi of his father. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant then submitted that the respondent must have been tired as he was driving the taxi throughout the night. Further admittedly, he was also employed during the day time in a company and his hours of duty were 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Therefore, he submitted that he must not be having sufficient sleep and when he was driving early in the morning at 5 a.m. he was not able to concentrate and drive carefully because of tiredness. The respondent was searchingly cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. He has stated that he had taken the taxi near the Ambassador Hotel and was sleeping in the taxi and early in the morning at about 4 a.m. he picked up a passenger and took him to Dadar and was returning when the accident had taken place. He has deposed that he was driving the taxi nearly for one hour prior to the accident. His deposition seems to be true on this point considering the time required for taking the taxi from the Ambassador Hotel to Dadar and back up to the spot of accident. The learned advocate for the appellant drew my attention to the deposition of the respondent where he has admitted that a log book regarding the taxi is maintained. An entry is made in the log book that he has taken the taxi at 9.15 p.m. However, his other deposition cannot be ignored in which he has deposed that he had taken the passenger to Church Gate and thereafter parked the taxi near the Ambassador Hotel and was sleeping. He has clearly deposed that he was not driving the taxi throughout the night. He has clearly deposed that he was not driving the taxi throughout the night. Therefore, this cannot help the appellant in any manner. The respondent may be employed in some company and was having the duty hours from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., however, this cannot lead to the conclusion that the respondent was tired and could not concentrate on driving resulting into the accident. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that according to the respondent, he was earning Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per night. He has stated about usual earnings. However, it is not possible to infer from this that the taxi driver was required to drive throughout the night for earning this much amount. There is also nothing to show what he had earned on that particular night. In the face of the evidence of the respondent that he was not driving throughout night and had parked the taxi near the Ambassador Hotel, it is not possible to hold that the tiredness of the respondent was responsible for the accident. 7. The learned advocate for the appellant then submitted that the respondent was drunk at the time of accident and the same has caused the accident. He submitted that the respondent was not admitted in Dr. Nair Hospital because of his drunkenness and was thereafter taken to Sion Hospital where he was admitted. However, this version of the appellant is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The appellant has made no attempt whatsoever to adduce any evidence to show that the respondent was not admitted in Dr. Nair Hospital because he was drunk. The hospital papers which are produced at Exh. 8 for the Sion Hospital did not make any mention regarding the respondent being drunk or was smelling of alcohol and that he was not admitted in Dr. Nair Hospital because of this. Except the bare word of the S.T. bus driver, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a case. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the case of the appellant that the respondent was drunk and was responsible for the accident. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the respondent had taken the turn from Jacob Circle and was proceeding towards Bombay Central. After the taxi was turned, the S.T. bus came from the opposite direction. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the case of the appellant that the respondent was drunk and was responsible for the accident. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the respondent had taken the turn from Jacob Circle and was proceeding towards Bombay Central. After the taxi was turned, the S.T. bus came from the opposite direction. The deposition of the driver is recorded on behalf of the appellant at Exh. 28. He has deposed that the taxi came at a fast speed and on the wrong side. He had seen the taxi at a distance of 50 feet and stopped the bus applying brakes. Thereafter the said taxi dashed against the stationary bus causing some damage to the bus. The version given by the respondent in his evidence at Exh. 7 is that he was driving the taxi at a speed of 20 km. per hour. The S.T. bus came from the opposite direction at a fast speed. He could not turn the vehicle to the left as there was footpath and people were sleeping. He applied the brakes. However, the bus dashed on the front side and as a result of the impact the taxi turned its face to West and thereafter dashed against the water pump situated near the footpath. It may first be noted that there is absolutely nothing to show that any damage was caused to the S.T. bus. No evidence has been led in that respect. No such report made by the driver of the S.T. bus is produced on record. The driver has admitted that he had made the police complaint which is at Exh. 29. However, in the said police complaint he has not stated that the bus was stationary when the taxi dashed against the bus. He has also not stated before the police that the taxi came on the wrong side. Further, after the accident, a notice was given to the concerned officer of the appellant from Bombay Central Depot which is marked at Exh. 23 in which it was informed that the S.T. bus dashed against a taxi on the wrong side causing considerable damage to the taxi and severe injuries to the respondent. The said notice came to be acknowledged by the Deputy General Manager (Traffic) vide Exh. 24. 23 in which it was informed that the S.T. bus dashed against a taxi on the wrong side causing considerable damage to the taxi and severe injuries to the respondent. The said notice came to be acknowledged by the Deputy General Manager (Traffic) vide Exh. 24. However, no reply was sent and the allegations made in the notice were not denied on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the allegation that the S.T. bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the S.T. bus was not disputed. It was for the first time the S.T. bus driver deposed that the taxi came from the wrong side and dashed against the stationary bus. In my opinion, it was clearly an afterthought and the court below was right in discarding the case which was tried to be put up on behalf of the appellant. Further, when admittedly the driver of the S.T. bus had seen the taxi at a distance of 50 feet, it was not necessary for him to stop the bus. He could have easily taken the bus on the left side since the width of the road was 40 feet. 8. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the panehanama made by the police is on record. The same could not be proved because of non-availability of the concerned police officer. Therefore, it was not exhibited. He submitted that the Tribunal could have looked into the same as the strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable. He also invited my attention to the admission of the respondent that he was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving while there was no prosecution launched against the driver of the S.T. bus. It may be noted that admittedly the respondent became unconscious after the accident and, therefore, he was taken to the hospital. The complaint was made only by the S.T. bus driver to the police and the panchanama was drawn at his instance. It may also be noted that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal prosecution inasmuch as no witness came forward to support the said case of rash and negligent driving by the respondent. Even the driver of the S.T. bus did not enter the witness-box in the said criminal case to prove the rash/negligent driving of the respondent. He was the best witness. The criminal court, therefore, obviously did not accept the said case. 9. Even the driver of the S.T. bus did not enter the witness-box in the said criminal case to prove the rash/negligent driving of the respondent. He was the best witness. The criminal court, therefore, obviously did not accept the said case. 9. The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the panchanama cannot be looked into since it was not proved as required by law. The appellant has given no reason whatsoever why there was failure to examine any of the panchas. He has submitted that though the Tribunal may not be said to be a civil court, it is a court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and all the provisions of Evidence Act are applicable. He submitted that he could have cross-examined any witness who would have entered the witness-box to prove the panchanama and established that it was not a correct one. 10. The learned advocate for the appellant relied upon Madarsab Saheblala Kattimani and Another Vs. Nagappa Vittappa Katabugol and Others, in support of his submission that the strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the panchanama be looked into even though not proved or admitted by respondent. In the said case, there was no dispute that the truck was insured. The accident took place causing death of one Balappa because the truck entered a private field where Balappa was looking after the sugarcane crop. A contention was raised on behalf of the insurance company that the said accident had taken place in a private place and not in a public place. It was not liable in view of Section 95 (1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It came to be argued in the said case on behalf of the claimants that there was nothing to bar the insured from covering the wider field than what was contemplated by Section 95 of the Act by entering into contract of insurance. This required consideration of the terms of the policy, i.e., whether there was any restriction put or not regarding the use of the motor vehicle. In the said case, the policy was produced by the learned advocate for the insurance company. The court has also affixed its seal on it, and it was clearly written that the policy was produced by the advocate. In the said case, the policy was produced by the learned advocate for the insurance company. The court has also affixed its seal on it, and it was clearly written that the policy was produced by the advocate. However, it remained to be marked and exhibited in the case. Against this background, it came to be held that the rigour of strict rules of Evidence Act is not applicable in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The court looked into the terms and conditions of the policy. However, this does not mean that all the rules of evidence are not applicable or not required to be followed by the Tribunal. The rules may not be applicable strictly. However, a document is required to be properly proved before it can be relied upon. It cannot be said to be mere technical rule. In fact, it is a fundamental rule of justice which cannot be ignored by any judicial Tribunal. It is required to be proved by examination of the concerned person who can be cross-examined to prove its falsity. The rules of evidence which are founded on the principles of natural justice are required to be followed by the Tribunal. A panchanama made by the police is required to be proved either by examining any of the panchas and in their absence by examining the concerned police officer. In the present case, no reason whatsoever is given why there was failure on the pail of the appellant to examine any of the panchas. The court below was, therefore, right in not exhibiting the same and relying upon it. In the result, I hold that the driver of the S.T. bus was negligent in driving the vehicle. He has failed to take the necessary care and has caused the accident while the respondent was not rash or negligent in driving the taxi. 11. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.