Four-person travel on a two-wheeler alone does not justify attributing all negligence to its rider.

On 4 June 2017, a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation collided with a two-wheeler carrying four persons on the Palani–Dindigul Main Road; the accident resulted in deaths, including those of Sholamalai and Nagendran.

Their legal representatives brought separate compensation claims, which were tried together.

The Tribunal attributed 80% negligence to the bus driver and 20% contributory negligence to the two-wheeler rider, and awarded compensation in both claims with interest at 7.5% per annum.

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

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 80% negligence to the bus driver and 20% contributory negligence to the two-wheeler rider, notwithstanding that four persons were travelling on the two-wheeler.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation disclosed an error warranting appellate interference.

The appeals were brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In assessing negligence, the court treated the number of persons travelling on the two-wheeler as a relevant circumstance, but held that this fact alone did not establish that the rider was solely responsible for the accident; negligence was to be apportioned in light of the evidence concerning how the accident occurred.

The court cited no precedent and stated no separate statutory test for appellate review of the compensation calculation.

The Tribunal had considered the evidence, including the testimony of P.W.3 and R.W.1 and the documentary record, and had already accounted for the four occupants by assigning 20% contributory negligence to the rider.

The Corporation produced no material showing that the accident was wholly attributable to the rider or that the Tribunal’s apportionment was perverse; the fact of overloading, by itself, did not displace the finding that the bus driver was also substantially negligent.

On quantum, the Corporation demonstrated no specific error in the income assessment, multiplier, or computation warranting interference.

It dismissed both appeals and confirmed the Tribunal’s common award dated 21 June 2022.

The Corporation was directed to deposit the respective awards, accrued interest, and costs, if not already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimants may withdraw the amounts according to the Tribunal’s apportionment, and the interest rate remains unchanged.

No costs were awarded.