Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

What weight attaches to the evidence of a vehicle owner's own driver on the manner of an accident?

M/s Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited v. M.Palaniyammal

C.M.A(MD)No.44 of 2025 · C.M.A(MD)No.44 of 2025
Coram: Justice K.Murali Shankar

🔖 Save this judgment 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

He is an interested witness. Where the Corporation examines only its driver, does not examine the conductor or any other person said to have witnessed the occurrence, and produces no evidence to corroborate his version, the Tribunal is right to act on the unshaken evidence of the eyewitness examined by the claimants.

Headnote

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Loss of dependency — Notional income — Future prospects — Multiplier — Consortium — Loss of dependency — Income not proved — Notional income fixed on age and avocation — Held: Where the claimants prove neither profession nor monthly income beyond an identity card, the Tribunal may fix a monthly income having regard to the age of the deceased, his avocation and the date of the accident, and such a figure is not excessive. (¶11) Future prospects — Deduction for personal expenses — Multiplier — Held further: Ten per cent is added towards future prospects, one-third deducted towards personal and living expenses on the number of dependants, and the multiplier applied as settled by the Supreme Court. Appeal dismissed. (¶11, ¶13) Rash and negligent driving — Driver an interested witness — No corroboration — Held further: The driver examined by the Corporation is an interested witness; where the conductor is not examined and nothing corroborates him, the unshaken eyewitness account prevails. (¶9)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 9It is pertinent to note that on the basis of the complaint lodged F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.229 of 2017, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A I.P.C., on the file of the Viralimalai Police Station against the bus driver. As already pointed out, P.W.2 – eyewitness gave evidence with regard to the manner of the accident reiterating the claim petition contentions. P.W.2 has deposed that while the deceased was walking on the extreme mud portion of the road, the bus driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Mookkan and caused the accident. Though P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination by the respondent Corporation side, nothing was elicited in their favour and the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the mode of accident remained unshaken. No doubt, the respondent Corporation examined its driver as R.W.1, who in turn deposed in tune with the defence taken by the respondet Corporation. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants, the respondent has not chosen to examine the conductor of the bus or any other person who allegedly witnessed the occurrence. The Tribunal has rightly observed that R.W.1 is an interested witness and the respondent has not produced any evidence to corroborate the version of R.W.1 with regard to the mode of accident. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the same cannot be found fault with.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited v. M.Palaniyammal — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

How is loss of dependency computed where the claimants prove no income for the deceased?Which heads of consortium are payable on the death of a person survived by a spouse and children?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections