Court holds TMT bus driver primarily negligent in accident involving stationary MSRTC bus; claimant's contributory negligence fixed at 25%, MSRTC bus exonerated; compensation of Rs.2,10,365 granted with interest.
In a significant judgment dated October 22, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice S.M. Modak, allowed an appeal filed by Mohan Laxman Chavan, a passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus and a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus. The case arose from an incident on August 4, 1998, at Gokul Nagar Bus Stand in Thane, where the claimant was compelled to stand on the footboard of a crowded TMT bus due to lack of space inside. As the TMT bus driver overtook a stationary MSRTC bus, the TMT bus grazed the MSRTC bus, causing the claimant to fall and sustain serious injuries.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had earlier dismissed the claim petition, attributing sole negligence to the claimant and doubting the involvement of the buses due to the absence of bus registration numbers in the police statement and FIR. However, upon appeal, the High Court found this conclusion erroneous.
The Court emphasized that a motor accident claim need not be decided on strict proof such as registration numbers of vehicles but on the "touchstone of preponderance of probabilities." It was held sufficient that the claimant identified the vehicles involved as a TMT bus and an MSRTC bus. The Court noted the practical difficulty for a passenger to note vehicle registration numbers during the sudden accident and prioritized claimant's credible oral evidence over the omission in police records.
Regarding negligence, the Court apportioned liability, holding the claimant partly negligent for standing on the footboard holding an article in hand amid a crowded bus (25% contributory negligence). However, it held the TMT bus driver primarily negligent (75%) for failing to exercise due caution while overtaking the stationary MSRTC bus. The MSRTC bus driver was exonerated since the bus was stationary and there was no evidence of wrongful parking or negligent behavior on their part.
On the issue of compensation, the claimant was awarded Rs.2,10,365, covering medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance, special diet, and attendance charges. The Court declined to grant compensation for loss of future earning capacity, noting that the claimant continued in service and was promoted despite the disability assessed at 30% by Dr. Sandeep Kelshikar.
The Court also addressed procedural aspects, observing that while the TMT had not filed a written statement, it was allowed to examine witnesses. The evidentiary value of such evidence was assessed in the context of the entire record. The Court underscored that criminal prosecution or lack thereof is not determinative of negligence in motor accident claims.
This judgment clarifies the principles applicable when registration numbers are not mentioned in police reports and reinforces that preponderance of probability and oral evidence suffice to establish liability in motor accident claims. It also highlights the principle of contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability between claimant and vehicle driver.
Bottom Line:
Motor Vehicles Act - Claim for compensation by passenger standing on footboard - Mere non-mention of registration number of buses in police statement/FIR is not fatal when claimant proves on preponderance of probabilities that he had boarded TMT bus and accident occurred while TMT bus negligently grazed stationary MSRTC bus - Contributory negligence of claimant standing on footboard assessed at 25% and negligence of TMT driver at 75% - MSRTC exonerated as its bus was stationary and there was no evidence of wrongful parking - Compensation awarded, but no amount granted towards loss of future earning capacity as claimant continued in service and was promoted.
Statutory provision(s):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166
