MSRTC Bus Crossed Divider, Killing Advocate: Bombay HC Upholds Finding of Sole Bus-Driver Negligence, Adds ₹2.28 Lakh to Award

On 4 September 1992, a State Transport bus crossed the road divider and collided with a car travelling in the opposite-direction lane, killing Purushottam Puri, an advocate and passenger in the car.

His legal representatives claimed compensation, alleging that the bus driver’s negligence caused the accident; the Corporation denied negligence and attributed the bus’s movement across the divider to the actions of a motorcycle ahead of it.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the bus driver solely negligent and assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 10,000.

The Corporation appealed, and the claimants sought enhancement.

The Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in assessing negligence, reasoning that the circumstances of the bus crossing the divider and striking the car supported the inference of the bus driver’s negligence.

It referred to Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which requires a driver following another vehicle to maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision if the vehicle ahead slows or stops.

On income, the Court considered the cited authorities Sayar v. Ramkaran, Nidhi Bhargava v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. in relation to post-death income-tax returns and averaging income from multiple years.

It also considered Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. concerning depreciation, and held that depreciation should not be added to income, whereas interest paid on a loan could be included for compensation assessment.

The Court recognised loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as compensable conventional heads.

The bus driver’s explanation that a motorcycle’s braking caused the bus to cross the divider did not displace the Tribunal’s finding: even if the motorcycle had stopped, a bus travelling at a moderate speed should have been controllable, and the bus’s trajectory, the force of impact and the damage shown in the photographs supported the finding of excessive speed and negligence.

The Court therefore upheld the finding of sole negligence.

For income, it reviewed four years of tax acknowledgments, including returns filed after the deceased’s death, and accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 10,000 per month as a reasonable assessment based on the record; it declined the claimants’ request for a higher figure.

It nevertheless found that the Tribunal had omitted recognised conventional heads and allowed Rs. 2,28,000 under those heads.

It modified the award by directing the Corporation to pay an additional Rs. 2,28,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed before the Alibag Tribunal until deposit; the claimants were directed to pay court fee on the enhanced amount, if required.