The judgment establishes the need for independent inquiry and preponderance of probability in establishing negligence in motor accident claims. It also emphasizes the requirement for reliable evidence to determine dependency for compensation.

1. The Appellants impugn the award dated 03.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.2,18,18,376/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 to 5 for the death of Inderpal Singh (the deceased) who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 31.10.2001.

2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, Respondents no.1 to 5 (Claimants before the Claims Tribunal) examined 7 witnesses to prove negligence and income of the deceased. PW-4 Kanhaiya Lal deposed about the negligence on the part of Appellant no.2 in driving bus no.DL-1PB-2508 belonging to Appellant no.1. Rest of the witnesses mainly deposed about the income of the deceased.

3. Appellants, on the other hand, examined R1W1 Attar Singh, driver of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus (Appellant no.2 herein) and R1W2 Raj Kumar, conductor of the bus to prove that the accident was caused because of the deceased’s own negligence.

4. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus registration no.1PB-2508 by Appellant no.2. On analysing the evidence of PWs 5 to 7 regarding the deceased’s income, the Claims Tribunal held the deceased income to be Rs.22,76,512/-, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 14 (deceased being 42 years) to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.2,18,03,376/- The Claims Tribunal further added certain sums towards non-pecuniary damages and proceeded to award the overall compensation of Rs.2,18,18,376/- to the Claimants.

5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-

(i) The accident was caused on account of deceased’s own negligence in driving Esteem car bearing registration no.DL-5C-6690. The Claims Tribunal erred in relying on the testimony PW-4 and discarding the testimonies of R1W1 and R1W2.

(ii) Respondents no.1 to 5 failed to prove the deceased’s income to be Rs.22,76,512/- per annum. The Claims Tribunal illegally took into consideration the evidence of PWs 5,6 and 7, it ought to have awarded compensation on the basis of income tax return (ITR) filed for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 which reflected the annual income of Rs.1,29,654.15P.

6. On the other hand, learned counsels for Respondents no.1 to 5 support the impugned award and contend that the negligence on the part of bus driver was sufficiently established that the income of the deceased was duly proved and that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

NEGLIGENCE

7. As stated earlier, Respondents no.1 to 5 had examined PW-4 Kanhaiya Lal as an eye witness to the accident whereas Appellants had produced the driver and conductor of the bus in support of their claim that the deceased himself was negligent. It was also the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants that acquittal of the driver in the criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC concludes that there was no negligence on the part of Appellant no.2. The Claims Tribunal, however, made an independent assessment of the evidence to reach the conclusion that Appellant no.2 was negligent and was therefore, responsible for causing the accident.

8. It is no longer res integra that standard of proof of negligence in a criminal case and in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) are different. It is also well settled that de hors acquittal of the driver in a criminal case, the Claims Tribunal is expected to make an independent inquiry to reach a conclusion whether the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle had been proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Reiterating these principles in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Kurumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“2…….The plea that the criminal cas