A mere Accident Register notation of alcohol use does not establish contributory negligence.

The deceased, Shanmugam, was injured and later died after falling while alighting from a Transport Corporation bus at Samuthuvapuram bus stand on 28 December 2018.

His wife sought compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal attributed the accident entirely to the bus driver and awarded compensation, including for loss of dependency, consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

The Transport Corporation appealed, disputing negligence and the compensation; the claimant also argued that the deceased’s notional income had been fixed too low.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing the accident entirely to the bus driver, including whether the deceased’s alleged alcohol consumption established contributory negligence.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, including the assessment of the deceased’s income, warranted interference.

The Court considered the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Sections 140 and 166, under which compensation claims may be pursued for injuries or death arising from motor accidents, and Section 173, under which an appeal may be brought against a Tribunal’s award.

It applied the evidentiary principle that a mere entry in an Accident Register indicating alcohol consumption does not, without supporting evidence, establish that a person was under the influence of alcohol or that the alleged consumption contributed to the accident.

The Court relied on the eyewitness’s evidence that the bus moved while the deceased was still alighting, and noted that the driver’s account and the Accident Register entry did not establish that the deceased was intoxicated or contributed to the accident. It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s finding of sole negligence against the bus driver.

On quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment—including the notional monthly income of Rs. 9,000, addition of 10% for future prospects, one-third deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier of 9—to be reasonable; it found no basis to interfere with the amounts awarded under the other heads.

It directed the Transport Corporation to deposit the award amount, with interest and costs and after crediting any amount already deposited, within four weeks; the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.