Criminal case closure does not preclude a negligence finding based on independent evidence.

The claimants, dependants of Vedamanikam, alleged that on 17 June 2019 a Transport Corporation bus hit the deceased’s two-wheeler, causing his death.

The Corporation denied negligence and relied, among other things, on the closure of the criminal case against its driver.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,68,068 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Corporation appealed, challenging both negligence and the quantum; during the appeal, the third respondent died, and the Court was informed that her legal heirs were already on record.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding the bus driver negligent notwithstanding the closure of the criminal case against him.

2. Whether the compensation of Rs. 10,68,068 awarded by the Tribunal required interference.

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

In motor accident claim proceedings, the Tribunal must independently assess the evidence concerning negligence; the outcome or closure of a criminal investigation is not, by itself, determinative of that issue.

A witness’s evidence before the Tribunal is not to be rejected solely because the witness was not examined during the criminal investigation.

For quantum, the Court considered the deceased’s age and occupation, the income assessed by the Tribunal, future prospects, and the multiplier applied.

The Court accepted P.W.2’s evidence as that of an independent eyewitness and found it consistent with the claimants’ account and not materially discredited in cross-examination.

The closure report and the bus driver’s evidence did not displace that testimony; accordingly, the Tribunal’s negligence finding stood.

On quantum, the Court held that monthly income of Rs. 10,000 was not excessive for a mason in an accident occurring in 2019, and found no error in the Tribunal’s application of 10% future prospects and multiplier of 11.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award amount, accrued interest, and costs, if not already deposited, within eight weeks.

Following the third respondent’s death, the first and second respondents were permitted to appropriate her share equally; withdrawal remained subject to the Tribunal’s apportionment, with the Tribunal’s interest rate unchanged.