Judgment : 1. The claimants in MCOP No.1322 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, are the appellants in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. They made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 towards compensation for the death of their son Chengalvarayan in an accident involving a vehicle belonging to the respondent/Corporation. 2. Their case was that on 6. 1991 at about 3.15 P.M., when the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the P.T.C. bus bearing registration No.TCB 4830 at Perambur Barracks Road, opposite to Police Quarters, Madras 7, proceeding from South to North, driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, the driver suddenly applied brakes, with the result, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained multiple injuries which proved to be fatal. The respondent/Corporation, being the owner of the vehicle, was statutorily and vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. According to the claimants, the deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident and working as Sweeper-cum-Messenger in Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 10 and earning Rs.1,000 per month. He died a bachelor and the parents, as appellants, were entitled to be paid compensation. 3. The respondent resisted the claim contending inter alia as follows: The bus, bearing registration No. TCB 4830, was not involved in the accident on 6. 1991. The said bus completed all the trips without any such accident/incident as alleged by the claimants. The claimants had to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. The Traffic Investigation Officer at Kilpauk Police Station wrongly registered the case against the driver of the bus eventhough the registration number of the bus was not at all mentioned in the First Information Report as well as in the sketch prepared by the Inspector. As the bus bearing registration No. TCB 4830 was not involved in the accident the respondent was not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, the compensation claimed was highly excessive, exorbitant and fanciful and the claimants had to prove the age, income, contribution, etc. of the deceased. 4. On the side of the claimants/parents. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On the side of the respondent/Corporation, the driver of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1 and the copy of the accident report was marked as Ex.R.1. 5. of the deceased. 4. On the side of the claimants/parents. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On the side of the respondent/Corporation, the driver of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1 and the copy of the accident report was marked as Ex.R.1. 5. TheTribunal held that the claimants had not proved that the bus in question was involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus. In coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal discredited the evidence produced on the side of the appellants as contradictory regarding the route number of the bus involved in the accident and the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, drawn by the police. Thus, the Tribunal found that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr.K.K.Dhandapani, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in its approach to the whole question, that the Tribunal should have accepted the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 and their statements should have been accepted as the same had come from disinterested witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that the driver of the bus, examined as R.W.1 had admitted that at the relevant time, he had driven the bus at 30 kms. per hour. This would amply prove that the factum of accident had been admitted and the total denial of the accident by the respondent/Corporation should have been rejected by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that there was enough evidence on the side of the claimants to show that the Vehicle TCB 4830 - was alone involved in the accident as it would be clear from the evidence of P.W.4. The learned counsel also relied on the omission on the part of the respondent/Corporation to make available the trip sheet and the log book relating to the vehicle during the relevant period. The learned counsel also, in support of his submissions, relied on the following judgments: 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare , 1982 A.C.J. 284 ; 2. The learned counsel also, in support of his submissions, relied on the following judgments: 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Tataba Hankare , 1982 A.C.J. 284 ; 2. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari , 1986 A.C.J. 699 and 3. A decision of a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.126 of 1996, dated 13. 1997. .7. Per contra, Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that the appellants had not established their case by any acceptable evidence that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellants had been improving their case with each witness, that when once a witness was found to be not truthful, they produced another witness and then a third witness and so on, and none of the witnesses had spoken to having seen the accident. In fact P.W.2 had spoken to his having shifted the deceased to the hospital while the First Information Report stated that one Sekar removed the deceased to the hospital. In short, the evidence, on the side of the claimants was bristling with inconsistency and inasmuch as the appellants had not proved their case, the Tribunals order rejecting their claim for compensation should be left undisturbed. The learned counsel, particularly, relied on the oral evidence of the driver of the vehicle as R.W.1 who had spoken to his being elsewhere in Thiru Vi Ka Nagar during the relevant time when the accident was alleged to have taken place and this evidence stood uncontroverted. 8. One Purushothamman has been examined as P.W.2. He has given the route number of the vehicle as A 42. He was a flower vendor and in the cross-examination he stated that at the time of the accident he was stringing the flowers and he did not leave his work spot and only the people who had seen said that the vehicle had hit the boy and that he did not actually see the vehicle hitting the boy. It is not put to him that the vehicle did not pass that place at that time. It was also not suggested to him that no such accident took place. 9. It is not put to him that the vehicle did not pass that place at that time. It was also not suggested to him that no such accident took place. 9. One Srinivasan has been examined as P.W.3. He has given the registration number of the vehicle as TCB 4830. According to him, the vehicle was going north from south and the driver applied sudden brake, as a result of which a person aged about 24 fell down from the bus and the bus moved away without stopping. He further deposed that he along with a flower vendor shifted the injured to the hospital, that he was questioned by the police in the hospital and gave his statement that he also gave the registration number of the bus. He further deposed that he saw the deceased fall down from the bus and the rear wheel running over him. He denied the suggestion that he did not shift the injured to the hospital and that one Sekar alone did that. He gave the route number as 38 C. He could not give the fleet number of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that no vehicle belonging to the respondent/Corporation was involved in the accident. .10. The Tribunal has rejected the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 on the ground that they had given contradictory version with regard to route number while P.W.2 had said it was A 42 and P.W.3 said it was 38 C. But the Tribunal made a mistake that P.W.3 did not give the registeration number of the bus. The Tribunal clearly overlooked the evidence of P.W.3, that in one place he had indeed given the bus registration number. Possibly, the depositions with regard to route number do not tally. That by itself cannot be a ground for discrediting their evidence. In these circumstances the oral evidence of P.W.4 Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Vepery Traffic Investigation, (Records Wing) is very relevant. On the basis of the records in the file he had spoken to the involvement of the vehicle, in question, in the accident and the police dropping the proceedings against the driver on the ground that the deceased was responsible for the accident and that the investigation was closed as mistake of fact. On the basis of the records in the file he had spoken to the involvement of the vehicle, in question, in the accident and the police dropping the proceedings against the driver on the ground that the deceased was responsible for the accident and that the investigation was closed as mistake of fact. In the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that in the First Information Report route number was given as A 42 and the registration number had not been given and that only on 16. 1991 the registration number was obtained through the Managing Director of the respondent/Corporation. He had also deposed that the person who had investigated the accident had retired. One thing is evident from this deposition that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and the respondent/Corporation had deliberately kept back the details from the Tribunal while defending the case. It was incumbent on them to have made available the log book and the trip sheet relating to the vehicle. Apparently they wanted to protect the driver of the vehicle. Emboldened by this attitude of the respondent/Corporation, the driver had gone to the extent of denying the very accident that the vehicle driven by him was involved in the accident. However, the truth was out when he said that at the time of the accident at 3.15 P.M., the traffic was less and that he would have driven the vehicle at 30 kms per hour. 11. In my view, there is sufficient evidence to show that only the vehicle bearing registration number TSB 4830 driven by R.W.1 was involved in the accident. 12. The next question therefore is as to whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by R.W.1. The driver had denied the accident. He did not want to be fastened with any liability or other disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him and the Transport Corporation had also played second fiddle to him by keeping back the documents. No doubt, the police had dropped the case against the driver and the conductor on the ground that the deceased was at fault, but that is not conclusive to show that the driver was not at fault at all. 13. No doubt, the police had dropped the case against the driver and the conductor on the ground that the deceased was at fault, but that is not conclusive to show that the driver was not at fault at all. 13. InMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Ta Taba Kankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Ta Taba Kankare Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Akatai Ta Taba Kankare , 1982 A.C.J. 284 an employee of a Road Transport Corporation travelled on the bus standing on the foot-board; while taking a turn the driver applied brakes suddenly, as a result of which the deceased fell down out of the bus and succumbed to injuries. A learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would apply and that more so as the Corporation failed to establish that the driver drove the bus with due care, caution, skill and with proper look out. The learned judge also found that the fact that the deceased travelled standing and was not occupying a seat would not dilute or narrow down the reasonable care required to be taken of a passenger in an omnibus as it is common experience that passengers even on payment of fare are allowed to travel standing on account of too many passengers and too few buses and that the fact that the deceased was travelling standing as a passenger cast a duty on the undertaking to carry him safely and in such cases principle of res ipsa loquitur would apply. 14. In another case decided by a Division Bench of Allahabad U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Kumari, 1986 A.C.J. 699 it was held adverse inference should be drawn when the Corporation concerned failed to produce the necessary records relating to any departmental enquiry conducted by it with regard to the accident. It has already been noticed that the log book and the trip sheet were not produced in the instance case. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation contended that the First Information Report itself had been filed 2 ½ hours after the accident and that would disprove the case of the claimants. I do not agree. It has already been noticed that the log book and the trip sheet were not produced in the instance case. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation contended that the First Information Report itself had been filed 2 ½ hours after the accident and that would disprove the case of the claimants. I do not agree. The deceased was seriously injured and he was shifted to the hospital and it was quite understandable that there was some time gap between the time of the accident and filing of the First Information Report. No adverse conclusion is possible. 16. In a case where the log sheet relating to a vehicle involved in an accident was not produced, a Division Bench of this Court drew adverse inference against the bus operator in A.Venugopal v Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, Madras, L.P.A.No.126 of 1996. Merely because the witness was notable to give the registration number of the bus, it would not mean that there was no accident and that the vehicle mentioned by the claimants was not involved in the accident. That was also a case where registration number was not given and the vehicle sped away without stopping, after the accident. 17. . In these circumstances, I have absolutely no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle belonging to the respondent/Corporation alone was involved in the accident and the finding contra by the Tribunal is set aside. 18. The next point relates to the quantum. Though the respondent/Corporation has disputed that the deceases was employed as Sweeper cum Messenger in Indian overseas Bank. Nehru Park Branch, Kilpak, earning Rs.1,000. The claimants’ case in this regard cannot be rejected outright. The Tribunal has not quantified the compensation. According to it the claimants had not proved that the vehicle belonging to the respondent corporation was involved in the accident. The suggestion made on behalf of the respondent/Corporation that the deceased was without a job, had been denied by the first appellant. We can safely fix the earning of the deceased at Rs.700 per month and his contribution to the family at Rs.500 and the multiplicand would be Rs.6,000. The mother was 46 years old and the proper multiplier would be 13. The total loss of earning would come to Rs.78,000. We can safely fix the earning of the deceased at Rs.700 per month and his contribution to the family at Rs.500 and the multiplicand would be Rs.6,000. The mother was 46 years old and the proper multiplier would be 13. The total loss of earning would come to Rs.78,000. To this, if we add Rs.10,000 each to the parents towards loss of love and affection Rs.3,000 funeral expenses and Rs.1,000 towards transport charges, the total would exceed a lakh of rupees as claimed by the appellants. The just compensation payable to the appellants would be therefore a lakh of rupees as claimed by them. Consequently the civil miscellaneous appeal will stand allowed. The claimants would be entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation with interest 12% from the date of petition till payment. No costs.