The court reaffirmed that proper assessment of income and future prospects is essential in determining compensation for injuries sustained due to negligence, particularly where evidence establishes a direct link to subsequent death.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated October 29, 2021 passed by the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai – 600 104’ (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.C.O.P.No.6427 of 2017, the legal representatives of the petitioner therein have preferred CMA.No.685 of 2023 for enhancement of compensation, while the respondent therein / Transport Corporation has preferred CMA No.109 of 2025 praying to set aside the Award. This Common Judgment will now govern both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. The petitioner in the claim petition passed away on April 20, 2022 and his legal representatives were brought on record vide this Court’s Order dated November 13, 2024 made in CMP Nos.19170 to 19172 of 2024 in CMA SR.No.112714 of 2023 and CMA No.685 of 2023.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claim original Petition.

PETITIONER’S CASE

4. On June 29, 2017 at about 19.30 hours, while the petitioner was sitting on a small bridge near his residence in Sathanancherry Village, driver of the respondent’s bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-1335 driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control of the bus while turning on a curve, causing the bus to crash into the bridge. In the accident, the Bus ran over the petitioner’s legs, leading to amputation of his right leg above knee. At the time of accident, the petitioner was a 30 years old Lorry Driver, earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner claims that the driver of the Bus was solely responsible for the accident and hence, the respondent / Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from the respondent.

RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The respondent denied the allegations stating that on June 29, 2017, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-1335 completed two trips without any issues. The petitioner claims that the accident occurred near Eswaran Koil, but if it had truly happened, the public would have stopped the bus and the police would have been immediately informed. However, First Information Report (FIR) was registered only after three days and the vehicle was sent for inspection after 14 days. The complainant of the FIR did not witness the accident and the FIR itself does not conclusively establish negligence by the bus driver. Citing previous judgments, the respondent contended that merely filing an FIR does not automatically fix liability. The petitioner must provide strict proof, including witness testimony. The respondent also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and that interest should be fixed as per Bank rates, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam -vs- Rajapriya and another in M.C.A.No.2765 of 2005. Stating so, the respondent sought to dismiss the claim petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.16 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the respondent, A.Joseph, Driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and directed the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner. The break-up of the