Madras HC Upholds ₹11.63 Lakh Award, Citing Unshaken Eyewitness and Bus Driver’s Failure to Testify in Fatal Crash

The claimants, the deceased Srinivasan’s siblings, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that a TNSTC bus negligently struck his motorcycle on 5 July 2019, causing injuries from which he died three days later

The Corporation disputed liability, alleging that the deceased rode negligently and caused the collision

The Tribunal relied on eyewitness evidence and found the bus driver solely negligent, awarding ₹11,63,000 in compensation

The Corporation appealed, challenging the negligence finding; the High Court also considered the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173

The Court assessed negligence from the evidence on record, including eyewitness testimony, the rough sketch and the parties’ evidence; it also considered the failure to examine the bus driver, who was directly concerned with the occurrence and competent to explain it

On compensation, the Court reviewed the Tribunal’s use of notional income, future prospects, personal-expense deduction and multiplier

The eyewitness (P.W.2) gave a clear account attributing the collision to the bus driver, and cross-examination did not discredit that evidence

Although the police final report treated the deceased as responsible, the rough sketch placed him on the extreme left of the road, leaving room for the bus to avoid the collision; the driver was not examined, and the conductor’s evidence was not considered wholly reliable

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

It also held the Tribunal’s income assessment and dependency calculation, including the 10% future-prospects addition, one-fourth deduction and multiplier of 11, reasonable

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award amount, with interest and costs and after crediting any amount already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimants were permitted to withdraw their apportioned shares in accordance with the Tribunal’s order

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed