Equal apportionment of negligence between colliding vehicles was upheld absent grounds for interference.

On 6 September 2010, a Tata Sumo carrying the claimant and his minor son collided with a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus on the Thirunaraiyur–Kumbakonam Nachiyarkoil Main Road.

The claimant was injured and his son died.

The claimant sought ₹10,00,000 in compensation for his son’s death.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found both vehicles responsible, apportioned negligence equally, and awarded ₹3,54,100 with 7.5% annual interest.

The Corporation appealed, challenging both the apportionment of negligence and the quantum.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 50% negligence on the Corporation’s bus.

Whether the compensation of ₹3,54,100, with interest at 7.5% per annum, warranted interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court assessed the apportionment of responsibility by considering the oral and documentary evidence concerning the accident and whether it supported attributing negligence solely to either vehicle.

It also considered whether the Tribunal’s award was just and reasonable, noting its use of the multiplier method.

The evidence did not establish that the accident was caused solely by either the Tata Sumo or the Corporation bus; the Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s equal apportionment of negligence.

On compensation, it found the Tribunal had considered the materials, including medical records, and applied the multiplier method; the Corporation had shown no valid ground for appellate interference.

It directed the Corporation to deposit its 50% share of the award with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the order; the claimant may withdraw it in accordance with law.

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