Independent eyewitness testimony supported fixing accident negligence on the bus driver.

The claimants, dependants of Ponnaiya, alleged that on 13 April 2018 a State Transport Corporation bus, driven rashly and negligently, collided with his two-wheeler, causing fatal injuries.

They sought ₹20,00,000 in compensation, claiming that the deceased worked as a coolie and earned more than ₹15,000 per month.

The Corporation denied the bus driver’s negligence and disputed the claim.

The Tribunal relied particularly on an eyewitness and the FIR, fixed negligence on the bus driver, and awarded ₹9,80,104 with interest at 7.2% per annum.

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

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing negligence on the driver of the Corporation bus.

Whether the compensation of ₹9,80,104 awarded by the Tribunal required interference.

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

In considering negligence, the Court assessed the eyewitness evidence, the FIR, the bus driver’s testimony, and the investigation’s final report; it did not identify a separate statutory test or cite a precedent.

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the deceased’s occupation, age, the accident year, and the absence of documentary proof of the claimed income, and reviewed the Tribunal’s assessment under the applicable principles governing motor-accident compensation. The judgment does not specify those principles or cite any precedent.

On negligence, the independent eyewitness supported the claimants’ account, while the bus driver’s contrary version lacked independent corroboration.

The final report against the driver further supported the claimants’ case; the Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s finding.

On quantum, although the claimed income of over ₹15,000 per month was not documented, the Tribunal had fixed monthly income at ₹7,000 in light of the deceased’s coolie work and the year of the accident.

The Court considered that figure reasonable and upheld the resulting award.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award, accrued interest, and costs within eight weeks if not already deposited; the claimants may withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment.

There was no order as to costs.