Evidence-supported apportionment of contributory negligence warrants no appellate interference absent perversity.

Sakthivel, who worked at a knitting company, died on 11 June 2018 from injuries sustained when his two-wheeler collided with a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus the previous day.

His dependants claimed compensation, pleading a monthly income of Rs.15,000; the Corporation disputed liability and quantum.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs.20,97,000, apportioned negligence 80% to the bus driver and 20% to the two-wheeler rider, and awarded Rs.16,77,600 after the deduction, with interest at 7.2% per annum.

The Corporation appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the apportionment of negligence and the income assessment.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 80% negligence on the bus driver and 20% contributory negligence on the two-wheeler rider.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required interference, including on the basis that the deceased’s monthly income had been assessed excessively.

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

The Court applied the principles of appellate review of a Tribunal’s factual assessment: interference with the apportionment of negligence was not warranted absent perversity, infirmity, or further material establishing that the assessment was wrong.

In assessing income, the Court accepted that, where documentary proof of actual earnings is absent, income may be reasonably assessed as notional in light of the accident year and the deceased’s occupation.

The driver’s evidence indicated that the two-wheeler had entered the bus’s lane, but the Tribunal had also considered that the bus driver had time to reduce speed and had attempted to control the vehicle.

The Court found the 80:20 apportionment supported by the evidence and noted that the Corporation produced no further material or demonstrated any perversity warranting a different allocation.

Although the claimants pleaded monthly earnings of Rs.15,000, they produced no documentary proof; the Court held that the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.10,000 per month was reasonable for the deceased’s occupation and the 2018 accident year.

The Corporation was directed to deposit the award amount, accrued interest, and costs, after credit for any amount already deposited, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment.

The claimants could withdraw their respective shares in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment; there was no order as to costs.