Unrebutted eyewitness testimony corroborated by FIR and charge sheet sustains negligence against the bus driver.

Respondents 1 and 2, the parents of Ibrahim, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹70 lakhs for his death in a road accident on 17 March 2018. The deceased, aged 24, was riding a two-wheeler on the Kovai–Singanallur Road when the appellant’s bus allegedly turned sharply to the right without sounding the horn or giving an indication, struck the motorcycle, and caused fatal injuries. The claimants asserted that the deceased was employed as an Assistant Systems Engineer with Tata Consultancy Services and earned approximately ₹30,000 per month.

The bus driver was set ex parte, while the Transport Corporation denied negligence and alleged that the accident resulted from the deceased’s rash and negligent driving, including driving at excessive speed and without a helmet.

The Claims Tribunal relied on the FIR, oral evidence of the eyewitness, the rough sketch, charge sheet, and salary certificate, held the bus driver negligent, and awarded ₹46,57,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Transport Corporation challenged that award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s bus driver, or by the deceased’s negligent riding of the two-wheeler?

2. Whether the compensation of ₹46,57,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal, including the assessment of income, future prospects, loss of dependency, and conventional damages, was excessive or legally unsustainable?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

In determining negligence, the Court applied the principle that liability may be established on the basis of credible oral and documentary evidence, including the FIR, eyewitness testimony, rough sketch, and charge sheet, particularly where the opposing party adduces no contra-evidence.

For computation of compensation, the Court accepted the proven salary of the deceased, applied the established principles relating to future prospects and loss of dependency, and affirmed the conventional heads of compensation in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 : (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The Court found that the FIR was registered against the bus driver and that its author, examined as PW2, gave a clear account that the bus attempted to overtake another vehicle, moved to the extreme right without sounding the horn, and struck the left handlebar of the deceased’s motorcycle.

This testimony was corroborated by the FIR, rough sketch, and charge sheet. Since the Transport Corporation produced no evidence to rebut that material or establish contributory negligence by the deceased, the finding that the bus driver caused the accident was upheld.

On quantum, the Court held that the salary certificate reliably established a monthly income of ₹30,000 and found no error in the Tribunal’s addition for future prospects or its computation of ₹45,36,000 towards loss of dependency.

The amounts awarded under consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses were also held consistent with the principles in Pranay Sethi.

The appeal was dismissed, and the award of ₹46,57,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition until deposit was confirmed.

The Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the awarded amount within twelve weeks, if not already deposited, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw it with accrued interest in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment order.