Unrebutted eyewitness testimony sustains a finding of bus-driver negligence.

The respondent, daughter of Duraisamy and sister of Selvavel, sought compensation for their deaths in a 13 February 2014 collision between their car and a bus owned by the appellant Corporation.

The Corporation disputed liability, alleging that 16-year-old Selvavel was driving the car and caused the collision.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded compensation in both claim petitions. The Corporation appealed, challenging negligence and quantum. The High Court considered the appeals together; the respondent did not appear.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the bus driver’s negligence caused the accident warranted interference.

2. Whether the compensation awarded for the deaths of Duraisamy and Selvavel was excessive or otherwise required interference.

The appeals were brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied the principle that negligence in a motor-accident claim must be determined from the evidence, and that the mere registration of a criminal case is not sufficient, by itself, to establish negligence.

It also assessed compensation by considering the evidence concerning income and occupation, the deceased persons’ ages, and the applicable dependency calculations.

The judgment cites no external precedent or additional statutory provision; it notes that an earlier appeal arising from the same accident had upheld the finding of negligence against the bus driver.

The eyewitness, PW2, testified that Duraisamy was driving and described the bus driver’s conduct; the Court found that his account was not rebutted in cross-examination.

The bus driver’s account was unsupported by a rough sketch or the complaint he said he had lodged, and he admitted that a final report had been filed against him.

The Court also relied on the earlier decision concerning the same accident, which had confirmed the finding of the bus driver’s negligence.

On quantum, it considered Duraisamy’s occupation, the absence of formal proof of income, and the accident’s date, and found the Tribunal’s assessment reasonable. It likewise found the notional income used for Selvavel, a student, reasonable.

The judgment contains an internal inconsistency regarding Selvavel’s monthly notional income: the Tribunal’s award is initially described as based on Rs. 8,000, while the Court later refers to Rs. 8,500.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation, with interest and costs and after crediting any amount already deposited, within four weeks of receiving the order.

The claimant may withdraw the sums in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.