Footboard Passenger Wins Rs 2.1 Lakh As Thane HC Finds TMT Driver 75% Negligent In Grazing Stationary MSRTC Bus

On 4 August 1998, the claimant boarded a crowded Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus and stood on its footboard.

He alleged that, as the TMT bus overtook a stationary Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus, the buses grazed each other, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding that neither bus was proved to have been involved and that the claimant alone was negligent.

He appealed.

The High Court considered the accident evidence, apportionment of negligence, and compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in finding that the claimant, rather than the TMT or MSRTC bus driver, was responsible for the accident.

2. Whether the claimant’s failure to identify either bus by registration number prevented a finding that the TMT bus was involved.

3. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation, and, if so, in what amount.

A claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is determined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities; proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required (Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corpn.).

In assessing injury compensation, a physical disability does not automatically establish loss of future earning capacity; the court must consider its actual functional and economic effect, while loss of amenities may be compensable (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar).

The court also considered the principle that the “use” of a motor vehicle is not confined to a vehicle in motion (Kalim Khan v. Fimidabee), but held it inapplicable to the stationary MSRTC bus absent evidence that it was improperly parked.

It distinguished authorities concerning unproved vehicle involvement on their facts.

The claimant’s account described the TMT bus overtaking the stationary MSRTC bus and grazing it, and the court considered that oral evidence together with the surrounding circumstances; the absence of a registration number or a police report identifying the buses was not decisive, since the accident occurred immediately after boarding and the claimant’s priority was to save himself.

The court found no basis to attribute negligence to the stationary MSRTC bus, but inferred that the TMT driver failed to take proper precautions while overtaking, causing the claimant’s hand to strike the MSRTC bus and the claimant to fall.

It also found the claimant partly responsible because he stood on the footboard in a crowded bus, and apportioned negligence 25% to him and 75% to the TMT driver.

Although the medical evidence assessed 30% disability, it did not establish a resulting loss of earning capacity; the claimant had been promoted, so no future-earnings award was made on that basis.

The court nevertheless awarded the specified heads of compensation, including three months’ loss of income and medical and non-pecuniary expenses.

It directed Respondents 1 and 3—TMT and the Director of Insurance—to pay the claimant Rs. 2,10,365, jointly and severally, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, within 12 weeks.

Any amount paid for no-fault liability was to be deducted, and additional court fee was payable before the Tribunal.