The Tribunal’s negligence finding and compensation award warrant no appellate interference.

The claimants, dependants of Prabhu, alleged that on 23 December 2016 a two-wheeler insured by the appellant struck him while he was walking on the roadside, causing fatal injuries.

They claimed compensation on the basis that he worked as a pump operator at a petrol bunk and earned more than ₹20,000 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found the rider negligent and awarded ₹28,81,000, including ₹28,56,000 for loss of dependency, with interest at 7.12% per annum.

The insurer appealed, disputing both negligence and the assessment of income and compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was correct in fixing negligence on the rider of the insured two-wheeler.

Whether the compensation of ₹28,81,000 awarded by the Tribunal required interference.

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

The Court assessed negligence by considering the evidence on record, including witness testimony and documentary evidence; it also considered the absence of contrary evidence from the insurer.

For quantum, the Court reviewed the evidence of occupation and income and the Tribunal’s use of a multiplier, observing that the Tribunal had applied principles laid down in relevant Supreme Court pronouncements, though it did not identify those authorities in its judgment.

The final report, the witnesses’ evidence and the documents supported the claimants’ account that the insured vehicle’s rider caused the accident. The insurer produced no contrary evidence, so the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence.

On quantum, the salary certificate and the petrol-bunk manager’s evidence supported the deceased’s occupation and income; the Court considered the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹15,000 and its multiplier of 17 reasonable and found no ground to interfere.

It directed the insurer to deposit the award amount, with interest, within eight weeks after adjusting any amount already deposited; the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.