Uncorroborated intoxication allegations cannot displace eyewitness evidence establishing a bus driver’s negligence.

The claimants, dependants of the deceased, alleged that on 8 February 2017 a Transport Corporation bus struck and fatally injured him while he was walking near Kumbakonam Bus Stand.

The Corporation denied negligence, contending that the deceased was intoxicated and fell into the moving bus.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded Rs.18,45,000, including loss of dependency, consortium, love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate.

The Corporation appealed, disputing both negligence and the deceased’s assessed monthly income of Rs.10,000.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding the Corporation’s bus driver negligent despite the defence that the deceased was intoxicated and fell into the bus.

Whether the compensation award of Rs.18,45,000 required interference.

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

In assessing compensation, the Court referred to the principles in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, including the application of the appropriate multiplier and future prospects in calculating loss of dependency.

The judgment applied the evidentiary principle that negligence may be determined from the available oral and documentary evidence; an allegation that the deceased’s intoxication caused the accident must be supported by acceptable evidence.

The Court relied on the independent eyewitness’s clear account that the deceased was walking along the roadside when the bus, driven rashly and negligently, struck and ran over him.

The FIR and final report supported that account, while the Corporation’s intoxication theory rested on the driver’s uncorroborated testimony; the postmortem certificate disclosed no trace of alcohol or other indication of intoxication.

The Court therefore upheld the finding of negligence.

It also held that Rs.10,000 per month was a reasonable income assessment for a carpenter given the 2017 accident, and found no error in the Tribunal’s application of the multiplier and future-prospects principles or in the resulting award.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award, accrued interest and costs, if not already deposited, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment; the claimants may withdraw their apportioned shares, and the deceased fifth respondent’s share may be withdrawn by the sixth respondent, his wife, in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment.

The Tribunal’s interest rate was left unchanged; no costs were ordered.