Rear-end collision evidence and unrebutted police records sustain the bus driver’s sole negligence.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Trilochan Kundu, who died after a KSRTC bus struck his motorcycle from behind on 25 October 2020

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded ₹52,78,000 with interest at 6% per annum

The claimants appealed for enhancement, while KSRTC challenged negligence, liability, and the quantum of compensation

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the KSRTC bus driver was solely negligent should be disturbed on the ground of contributory negligence

2. Whether the compensation awarded required enhancement at the claimants’ instance or reduction at KSRTC’s instance

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident, and Section 173(1) provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award

Negligence in motor-accident claims is determined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as stated in Kusum v. Satbir and Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects are added according to the deceased’s age and employment circumstances, and compensation under conventional heads is governed by the applicable principles

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation guides the deduction for personal expenses by reference to the number of dependants, while Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram recognises consortium for eligible family members

The judgment also referred to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure in upholding the interest rate

The Court rejected contributory negligence because the spot sketch and mahazar showed the motorcycle travelling on the left side of the road and the bus striking it from behind; the IMV report supported the account of impact, and the bus driver’s allegation was not substantiated by a formal complaint or a challenge to the charge sheet

On quantum, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of ₹30,819 as monthly income based on the income-tax documents, rather than the higher CTC claimed by the appellants

It also upheld a 30% addition for future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses given five dependants, and the multiplier of 14; it found the conventional-head awards and 6% interest consistent with the applicable principles

It dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹52,78,000 with interest at 6% per annum