Uncontroverted claimant testimony sustains bus-driver negligence where the transport corporation adduces no contrary evidence.

Madhu was injured when his motorcycle collided with a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus on 18 January 2024.

He alleged that the bus driver caused the accident by driving rashly and negligently; the Corporation denied liability and alleged that Madhu caused the collision.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded ₹9,39,500, including compensation for 22% disability.

The Corporation appealed, challenging both negligence and quantum.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding the bus driver solely negligent for the accident

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, including the amounts for disability and other heads, required reduction

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied the principle that the claimant must discharge the initial burden of establishing the accident and the alleged negligence, and considered whether the Corporation supported its contrary account with evidence.

It also assessed whether the Tribunal’s compensation, having regard to the medical evidence, injuries and other material on record, was just and proper.

Madhu testified to the manner of the accident, while the Corporation called neither the bus driver nor an independent witness and produced no documentary evidence to support its allegation that Madhu caused the collision. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s finding of negligence against the bus driver.

On quantum, the Medical Board assessed disability at 22%, and the Court considered the serious injuries, multiple surgeries and treatment when upholding the Tribunal’s rate of ₹9,000 per percentage of disability. It also found no basis to disturb the income calculation of ₹11,000 per month for four months or the awards under the other heads.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order; Madhu may withdraw the amount, subject to adjustment for any sums already withdrawn.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed.