A transport corporation remains liable absent proof that the accident bus was transferred to another undertaking.

Shantha claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained when a SETC bus allegedly collided with cars and capsized on 14 January 2017.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal attributed the accident to the bus driver’s negligence and awarded ₹71,500, assessing disability at 7% and compensation at ₹5,000 per percentage point.

SETC appealed, contending that the bus had been transferred to TNSTC Tirunelveli before the accident and that the corporation was not liable; Shantha appealed for enhanced compensation.

Whether SETC could avoid liability on the ground that the bus had been transferred to TNSTC Tirunelveli, despite not proving the transfer or impleading that corporation.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of disability compensation, loss of income, and nutrition expenses required enhancement.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeals were filed under Section 173.

The Court applied the principle that a party asserting that the bus had been transferred—and that it therefore was not liable—had to establish that assertion with evidence; SETC produced no documents or witness to do so.

For disability compensation, the Court relied on Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited v. Manivannan and others, 2024 (1) TNMAC 598 (DB), to fix compensation at ₹7,000 per percentage of disability for the 2017 accident.

SETC’s transfer and non-ownership contention failed because it offered no evidence before the Tribunal and did not seek to implead TNSTC Tirunelveli in its appeal. The Court therefore upheld SETC’s liability, observing that SETC could take appropriate steps to recover from TNSTC if required.

On quantum, it upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of disability at 7%, but increased the rate to ₹7,000 per percentage, having regard to the cited precedent.

Given Shantha’s age, work as a coolie, and treatment history, the Court increased monthly income to ₹15,000, allowed two months’ loss of income, and enhanced nutrition expenses to ₹20,000.

SETC was directed to deposit the enhanced award, interest, and costs, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the Tribunal’s other directions remained unchanged.