The Supreme Court awarded enhanced compensation in a motor accident case and reiterated that in such cases, strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply.

The Apex Court was considering the appeals challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which in turn, was preferred against the judgment and order MACT, Bangalore

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability.”

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2016, when the deceased, aged 38 years, was travelling on his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala. The driver of the BMTC Bus (offending vehicle)collided with the deceased, driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot due to the grievous injuries sustained. The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000, submitting therein that the deceased was the only earning member of the family, working as an Executive in the Housekeeping Department at a Hotel and earning upto Rs.70,000 per month.

The Tribunal, by its Order after considering the last drawn salary of the deceased as Rs.62,725/- per month, awarded the Appellants an amount of Rs.75,97,060 along with interest @ 9% per annum and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the BMTC Bus. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, both parties filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court determined the contributory negligence at 75% on the driver of the bus and 25% on the deceased and concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle. An enhanced amount of Rs.77,50,000 was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-claimants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench disagreed with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. The Bench held that the Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and the Spot Mahazar, concluded that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence on record indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased. The Bench affirmed the view that the cause of the accident was the rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.

Reference was made to the judgment in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) wherein it has been observed that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. “In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed”, it added.

The Court also noted that the High Court was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.50,000 as this amount was relatively low, particularly in the background of the fact that the Tribunal had recorded that the last drawn salary of the deceased as per Pay Slip to be Rs.62,725/- per month. “Therefore, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.62,725/- per month”, it said.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench granted an enhanced compensation of Rs 1,20,84,925 to the appellants-claimants.

Read Order: Prabhavathi & Ors. v. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 293)

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.