Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. This appeal is filed by the Corporation against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal which was in turn against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vndhachalam. 2. The claimant is the owner of a van which was proceeding on 7. 1990 at about 8.45 p.m. near Chinnakosapallam on Pannadam to Vridhachalam road. When the van was turned to avert an accident with a cart which suddenly intercepted, the van capsized and got upside down. None of the passengers got injured but the van was lying on the roadside. When the appellant’s bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner it dashed against the van and caused heavy damage thereto. On that footing the claimant filed the petition for Rs.35,000. 3. The contention of the appellant was that the van was driven in a rash and negligent manner and when the driver of the bus saw the van be stopped the bus at once. But the van lost its control while negotiating a curve, capsized and hit against the bus. Thus the entire negligence was only on the part of the driver of the van and the Corporation is not liable. 4. In the course of trial, reliance was placed on the admission of the driver in the criminal proceedings that he was guilty of rash and negligent driving under Sec.277,1.P.C. It was contended that after the driver of the van had admitted that he was driving the van rashly and negligently, it was not open to the owner of the van to claim compensation as if the appellants bus was driven negligently. 5. On the side of the claimant, one of the passengers of the van was examined. No doubt, the driver of the van was not examined. On the side of the appellant, the conductor examined and the driver of the bus was not examined. There is no explanation on the part of the appellant as to why its driver was not examined. 6. After considering the entire evidence on record, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to compensation and fixed the amount Rs.12,000. 7. On the side of the appellant, the conductor examined and the driver of the bus was not examined. There is no explanation on the part of the appellant as to why its driver was not examined. 6. After considering the entire evidence on record, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to compensation and fixed the amount Rs.12,000. 7. On appeal, it is contended that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Nandakumar v. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, (J992)l L.W.25 will apply to the facts of the case and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Judge has held that the judgment has no relevance in the present case and found that the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence is correct and the award of a sum of Rs.12,000 by way of compensation is also just and proper. 8. In this appeal the contention that the decision in Nandakumar’s case, (1992)1 L.W. 25 will apply to the present case is repeated, we find that in Nandakumar s case, (1992) 1.L.W. 25. the claimant was proceeding on his motor-cycle and the bus belonging to the respondent came in the opposite direction and hit the motor-cycle thereby causing bleeding injuries to the claimant. The claimant, however, admitted in the criminal proceedings that he was driving the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was caused only because of the same. The Tribunal, after finding that if compensation was to be awarded, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,900 dismissed the petition holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the claimant was not entitled to any compensation thereafter. The Tribunal also observed that the claimant was guilty of abuse of process of court in filing the claim petition after admitting in the criminal proceedings that he was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the tribunal and at the same time found on the materials on record that the accident was caused only because the appellant before the Bench was guilty of rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle. The Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the tribunal and at the same time found on the materials on record that the accident was caused only because the appellant before the Bench was guilty of rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle. The Division Bench did not rely merely on the admission of the appellant in the criminal proceedings but found on the evidence that he was guilty of rash and a negligent driving of the motor-cycle. 9. However, it was contended before the Bench that under Sec.92-A of the old Act (Motor Vehicles’ Act) the claimant would be entitled to minimum compensation on the basis of no fault clause. That was negatived by the Bench holding that unless the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the opposite party the claimant will not be entitled to any compensation. In that context the Bench said that in a case where the claimant had admitted his guilt, it was not open to him to claim compensation from the opposite party even under Sec.92-A of the said Act. Those observations cannot be made use of by the appellant in the present case. The ruling in that case will have no bearing whatever to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. On the evidence on record we find that it is clear that the accident with respect to which the present petition has been filed by the owner of the van was caused only by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s bus. In fact, no reliance can be placed by the appellant on the admission made by the driver of the van in the criminal proceedings that he was guilty of rash and negligent driving. What he had admitted before the magistrate was only that first the van had capsized on account of his rash and negligent driving which would fail under Sec.277, 1.P.C. even though no third party was involved in that accident. That will not enable the appellant to contend that the same would bind the owner of the van so as to prevent the owner from claiming compensation for the damage caused to the van by the bus. In fact, the accident by which the van has suffered damage is different and not the same one in which the van had capsized. 11. In fact, the accident by which the van has suffered damage is different and not the same one in which the van had capsized. 11. A passenger in the van has given evidence as P.W.I. Nothing has been elicited from him so as to discredit his evidence. The tribunal has rightly accepted the same. There is no explanation as to why the appellant has not examined the driver of the bus. Hence, the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was caused only by the rash and negligent driving of the bus. 12. As regards the quantum learned counsel contends that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the damage incurred by the claimant would come to Rs.35,000 as claimed by him. The Tribunal has referred to Ex.A-2, which is the report of the Motor Vehicles’ Inspector, who had seen the van immediately after the accident. He has noted the various damages’ caused to the van. Ex.A-4 is the Motor Surveyor s report which also shows that a sum of Rs.25,000 would be required to repair the damages. The tribunal has, however, awarded only a sum of Rs. 12,000 because the driver has not been examined and no document has been filed by the claimant to prove the actual amount incurred for repairing the vehicle. Ex.A-5 comprises photographs which also show the damages caused to the van. In those circumstances there is no justification whatever to interfere with the award of Rs.12,000 as compensation. The view taken by the learned Judge is correct. This appeal is dismissed.