Independent eyewitness evidence, supported by the FIR, justified finding the bus driver negligent.

The claimants, dependants of Nagaraj, sought compensation after he died in a collision between his two-wheeler and a Transport Corporation bus on 15 September 2018.

They alleged that the bus driver caused the accident by driving rashly and negligently; the Corporation contended that Nagaraj crossed a barricade, fell in front of the bus, and was responsible for the accident.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded Rs.13,90,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Corporation appealed, challenging both the negligence finding and the quantum.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding the bus driver negligent on the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.1.

Whether the compensation of Rs.13,90,000 awarded by the Tribunal required interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal from an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court assessed negligence by weighing the eyewitness evidence and the supporting or contradictory material on record; it treated the FIR and final report as supporting the claimants’ account and the bus driver’s uncorroborated assertions as insufficient to displace it.

In assessing compensation, the Court considered whether the Tribunal’s income assessment and overall award were reasonable in light of the deceased’s occupation and the circumstances of the case.

P.W.2, an independent eyewitness, supported the claimants’ account, which was also consistent with the FIR and the final report against the bus driver.

By contrast, R.W.1’s account concerning the barricade and the deceased’s alleged alcohol consumption lacked corroboration: no sketch or other evidence established the barricade, and the postmortem report did not record alcohol.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s negligence finding.

It also held that the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of Rs.8,000 was not excessive for an agricultural coolie aged about 45, and that the total award was just and reasonable.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award amount, accrued interest, and costs, after crediting any sum already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimants may withdraw the amount according to the Tribunal’s apportionment, and the Tribunal’s interest rate remains unchanged.

No costs were awarded.