Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Negligence — Collision between bus and car
In a claim arising out of a collision between two vehicles, negligence can be established on the basis of eye-witness evidence, crime record, charge-sheet, and surrounding probabilities, without insisting on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Paras 23–27, 30–35)
Negligence — APSRTC — Departmental action as corroborative circumstance
Where the driver of the APSRTC bus was subjected to criminal prosecution and departmental suspension, the Corporation cannot simultaneously contend absence of negligence. Such contradictory stands amount to blowing hot and cold and cannot be accepted.
(Paras 27–29)
Contributory negligence — Burden of proof
Plea of contributory negligence must be established by cogent evidence. Mere allegation that the driver of the car was negligent, without examining independent witnesses or producing motor vehicle inspection evidence, is insufficient.
(Paras 24–30)
Non-joinder of owner and insurer — When not fatal
Non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the car in which the deceased was travelling is not fatal where the evidence establishes exclusive negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus.
(Paras 23–30, 35)
Standard of proof — Motor accident claims
In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Tribunals must adopt a holistic and pragmatic approach, consistent with the social welfare object of the legislation.
(Paras 30–35)
Income — Income Tax returns — Evidentiary value
Income Tax returns, PAN card, VAT registration, and testimony of an Income Tax consultant constitute reliable evidence to establish the income of a self-employed deceased. Non-payment of tax does not negate earning capacity.
(Paras 12–14, 38–40)
Future prospects — Self-employed deceased
In the case of a self-employed deceased aged 26 years, addition towards future prospects is permissible, having regard to the likelihood of progression in income.
(Paras 40–41)
Multiplier — Age of deceased
For a deceased aged 26 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’.
(Para 41)
Loss of consortium — Children
Minor children of the deceased are entitled to parental consortium, each at Rs.40,000/-.
(Paras 42, 44)
Dependency — Parents-in-law
Even if parents-in-law are not direct dependents, reasonable dependency can be recognised where the family was living together, consistent with the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act and principles under the Fatal Accidents Act.
(Para 43)
Just compensation — Duty of Court
The Tribunal and appellate court are duty-bound to award just and reasonable compensation, avoiding technicalities, and must reassess compensation where the award is found inadequate.
(Paras 36–45)
Interest — Enhancement
Enhancement of compensation can be accompanied by enhancement of the rate of interest where justified by facts and delay.
(Paras 45–47)
ANALYSIS
Both appeals arose from the award dated 02.12.2011 in O.P. No.674 of 2009. The APSRTC challenged liability and quantum, while the claimants sought enhancement of compensation (Paras 1–5).
On negligence, the Court affirmed the finding against APSRTC by relying on eye-witness testimony (P.W.2), charge-sheet, FIR, and admissions of the bus driver, holding that contributory negligence of the car driver was not proved (Paras 23–30). The Court strongly deprecated the contradictory stand of APSRTC in denying negligence while subjecting its driver to suspension and disciplinary proceedings (Paras 27–29).
The plea of non-joinder of the car owner and insurer was rejected, as evidence established exclusive negligence of the bus driver (Paras 23–30). The Court reiterated that motor accident claims are to be decided on probability and holistic appreciation, consistent with the summary nature of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act (Paras 30–35).
On quantum, the Court reassessed the income of the deceased based on Income Tax returns, PAN, VAT registration, and expert testimony, correcting the MACT’s conservative approach (Paras 38–40). Future prospects were added, the appropriate multiplier applied, and compensation recalculated (Paras 40–41).
The Court awarded parental consortium to minor children, recognised reasonable dependency of parents-in-law, and rationalised conventional heads, resulting in enhancement of compensation from Rs.15,84,000/- to Rs.20,37,000/-, with interest enhanced from 8% to 9% per annum (Paras 42–47).
Accordingly, APSRTC’s appeal was dismissed, and the claimants’ appeal was partly allowed (Paras 46–47).
RATIO DECIDENDI
In motor accident claims, negligence may be established on the basis of eye-witness testimony, crime records, and surrounding probabilities, without insisting on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the evidence establishes exclusive negligence of the APSRTC bus driver, pleas of contributory negligence and non-joinder of the car owner or insurer must fail. Income Tax returns and allied statutory records constitute reliable evidence of income of a self-employed deceased, and future prospects must be added in accordance with settled law. Courts are duty-bound to award just compensation, including parental consortium to minor children and reasonable dependency benefits to parents-in-law, even by enhancing compensation and interest on appeal.
