Credible eyewitness testimony, corroborated by police records, sustains a finding of negligence against the offending driver.

The claimants, the legal representatives and dependants of Boothalingam, sought compensation for his death following a collision on 8 July 2017 between his motorcycle and a Tata Super Ace insured by the appellant.

They alleged that the Tata Super Ace driver caused the accident by driving rashly and negligently; the appellant disputed negligence and the claimed quantum.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the Tata Super Ace driver negligent and awarded Rs.19,45,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging both negligence and the compensation awarded.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the accident resulted from the negligence of the driver of the appellant-insured Tata Super Ace

Whether the compensation of Rs.19,45,000 awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Negligence in a motor-accident claim must be determined from the evidence concerning how the accident occurred; the fact that the deceased was riding a two-wheeler does not, without supporting evidence, establish his negligence.

In assessing notional income, the Court relied on Andal and Others v. Avinavkannan and Others, 2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB), concerning determination of income by the cost-index method.

The Court also considered the application of the multiplier with reference to the deceased’s age and the overall computation of compensation.

The Court upheld the negligence finding because the independent eyewitness’s account placed the Tata Super Ace on the deceased’s side of the road and was supported by documentary evidence, including the FIR and police investigation; the insurer’s evidence did not sufficiently discredit that account.

On quantum, it found the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of Rs.12,000 reasonable for a mason in 2017, particularly given the cost-index method and the absence of contrary evidence.

The insurer also failed to demonstrate a specific error in the multiplier or other calculations.

It directed the insurer to deposit the award amount, accrued interest, and costs, after credit for any prior deposit, within eight weeks; the claimants may withdraw their apportioned shares in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.