JUDGMENT : 1. The issue revolves around two questions: (1) whether the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle causing injury to a pedestrian constitutes negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle, and (2) whether a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), is maintainable? 2. This appeal has been filed by the Director General of Police and the Kerala State Insurance Department, who were respondents 1 and 3 in OP(MV) No.1872 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the claimant and the second respondent respectively before the tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case of the claimant before the tribunal are as follows: On 28.08.2010, while the claimant, a house wife aged 64 years, was waiting at the Edappally Toll bus stop at Ernakulam, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-01/X 9463 driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and when it reached the place of occurrence, the rear left tyre of the said jeep was thrown out and hit the claimant, whereby she sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.X1 as court exhibit. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,46,818/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The State/respondents 1 & 3 have come up in appeal, challenging the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 5. 2,46,818/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The State/respondents 1 & 3 have come up in appeal, challenging the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 5. I have heard in detail the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant. 6. The learned Government Pleader assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the claimant has not adduced any evidence to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Government Pleader also argued, though it is not raised as a ground in the memorandum of appeal, that the claim petition ought to have been filed under Section 163A of the Act and not under Section 166. The quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under different heads is also under challenge. 7. The learned Government Pleader argued that the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle was not due to any negligence on the part of the driver, but a mechanical defect; and hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver; and the duty was cast upon the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle to get compensation. To substantiate the above contentions, the learned Government Pleader relied on the judgments of the apex court in Kaushnuma Begum & others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2001 (1) KLT 408 , Surinder Kumar Arora & another v. Dr. Manoj Bisla & others, AIR 2012 SC 1918 . 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the accident occurred when the tyre was rolled out from the vehicle and the negligence on the part of the driver and owner in maintaining the vehicle in good condition is at large and there is no necessity to adduce any direct evidence to prove the same. To substantiate the contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the apex court in Gian Chand & others v. Gurlabh Singh & others, (2016) 16 SCC 590 . 9. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, I find no reason to interfere with the award as it reflects a just and reasonable amount. 10. 9. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, I find no reason to interfere with the award as it reflects a just and reasonable amount. 10. Regarding the contention of proving negligence on the part of the driver in causing the accident, it is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rolling of the left rear tyre from the jeep and the tyre hitting the claimant, who was standing at the bus stop. She sustained serious injuries in the accident including multiple fractures and incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs. 1,55,818/-. Pursuant to the accident, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector had reported in Ext.A4 inspection report, which is reiterated in the impugned award, as follows: “…..left rear side tyre was dislocated. AMVI has noted in Ext.A4 that the wheel nuts on the wheel bolt were not found and all the wheel bolts are found damaged at the thread portion holes on the wheel disk for the wheel bolts damaged and found in oval shape.” Thus, it is clear that the wheel bolts were not properly tightened before the vehicle was put on the road. In determining whether the driver was negligent, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, shifting the burden to the driver and owner to prove that there was no negligence. Here, the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle is self-evident, requiring no additional direct evidence. A tyre can roll out from a vehicle only if the nuts and bolts are damaged or not properly tightened. While the jeep was running, the tyre rolled out from the vehicle and hit the claimant. Thus, it is clear from the incident itself that the nuts and bolts of the tyre were not tightened properly or they were damaged. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to Section 190 the Act, which reads as follows: “190. While the jeep was running, the tyre rolled out from the vehicle and hit the claimant. Thus, it is clear from the incident itself that the nuts and bolts of the tyre were not tightened properly or they were damaged. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to Section 190 the Act, which reads as follows: “190. Using vehicle in unsafe condition.- (1) Any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven in any public place a motor vehicle or trailer while the vehicle or trailer has any defect, which such person knows of or could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care and which is calculated to render the driving of the vehicle a source of danger to persons and vehicles using such place, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees or, if as a result of such defect an accident is caused causing bodily injury or damage to property, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 11. It is the bounden duty of the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle to have exercised ordinary care before putting the vehicle on road. The owner and driver of the vehicle have a responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition before putting them on road. This includes regular maintenance checks, proper tyre pressure and condition, ensuring loose parts, such as nuts and bolts on tyres. Failure to do so can lead to accidents and injuries, potentially resulting in liability for damages or injuries caused. The owner and the driver of the vehicle indeed have a duty to exercise ordinary care to ensure that the vehicle is safe for operation and does not pose any risk to others. Here, the owner as well as the driver had not taken a basic care or caution to see that the nuts and bolts of the tyres were properly tightened before putting the vehicle on the road. Their careless attitude amounts to negligence. The driver or the owner did not mount the box and gave evidence to prove that they had exercised reasonable care and caution, before putting the vehicle on the road. 12. Their careless attitude amounts to negligence. The driver or the owner did not mount the box and gave evidence to prove that they had exercised reasonable care and caution, before putting the vehicle on the road. 12. It is the further argument of the learned Government Pleader that since the accident occurred due to the rolling out of the tyre from the vehicle, there was no negligence on the part of the driver in causing the accident. The mere contention that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, is not sufficient. When such an argument is raised, they ought to have established by adducing evidence that proper care and caution were taken by the driver or the owner before putting the vehicle on the road. The driver of the vehicle was not examined. When a defence of mechanical failure is taken, it is the duty of the party, who takes the defence, to establish that the vehicle was properly maintained. The apex court in Gian Chand (supra) held that, “merely a mechanical failure is not enough to exonerate Transport Undertaking from its liability in absence of evidence being adduced that vehicle was maintained properly”. A mechanical failure alone does not absolve the owner or driver of liability without proof of proper vehicle maintenance. In Kaushnuma Begum (supra), relied on by the learned Government Pleader, the accident occurred due to the bursting of the front tyre of the offending jeep while in motion, pursuant to which it capsized and hit the deceased therein. In the case on hand, it is not a bursting of the tyre that caused the accident, but rolling of tyre from the vehicle. The principles laid down by the apex court in Kaushnuma Begum (supra) cannot be applied in the present case since bursting of tyre is entirely different from rolling of tyre from the vehicle. Since, the accident occurred due to the rolling of tyre from the vehicle, it clearly proves the absence of ordinary care and caution on the part of the owner and driver. Had the driver been careful and kept the vehicle in good condition, the accident could have been avoided, more particularly, the impact and magnitude of the accident. 13. Chapter VII of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short, “the Rules”) deals with the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Had the driver been careful and kept the vehicle in good condition, the accident could have been avoided, more particularly, the impact and magnitude of the accident. 13. Chapter VII of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short, “the Rules”) deals with the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. In part I of Chapter VII, general rules applicable to all motor vehicles are enumerated. Rule 249(1) of the Rules reads as follows: “249. General.-(1) No person shall use and no person shall cause or allow to be used or to be in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the rules contained in this Chapter or with any order thereunder made by the competent authority.” Rule 258 of the Rules reads as follows: “258. Locking of nuts.-All moving parts of every motor vehicle and all parts subject to severe vibration connected by bolts or studs and nuts shall be fastened by some efficient device so as to prevent them working or coming loose.” Thus, it is clear that the driver and the owner have not complied with the general rules applicable to motor vehicles by not taking due care and caution to tighten the nuts and bolts of the tyre. 14. Since the accident occurred due to the rolling out of the tyre from the vehicle, I find that there was negligence on the part of the driver and owner of the vehicle. As revealed from the report of the AMVI, wheel nuts on the wheel bolts were not found on the tyre. Thus, it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the driver and owner of the vehicle. Government owned vehicles should adhere to higher standards of maintenance and safety. Given their role in serving the public, government vehicles are expected to maintain strict safety protocols and prioritize on public safety. Having failed to keep the vehicle in good condition, the government should not have raised such contentions and thereby delayed the compensation payable to the claimant. Since it is found that the injuries sustained to the claimant due to the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle were caused on account of the negligence of the driver and owner of the vehicle; and the second appellant, being the insurer of the said vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 15. Since it is found that the injuries sustained to the claimant due to the rolling of the tyre from the vehicle were caused on account of the negligence of the driver and owner of the vehicle; and the second appellant, being the insurer of the said vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 15. The next challenge raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the claimant ought to have filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, not under Section 166. In a case of rolling out of the tyre from the vehicle and causing an accident, there is no necessity for any direct evidence to prove negligence on the part of the driver. The negligence is clearly evident and proved. Hence, I find that the claimant has rightly filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.