Acquittal of the Driver Is No Answer to a MACT Claim: Supreme Court Restores Full Negligence and Raises Widow's Award to Rs 50.81 Lakh

Case at a Glance

In a non-reportable judgment, the Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court finding of 50:50 contributory negligence in a 2005 car–bus collision. It held that the criminal acquittal of the bus driver on benefit of doubt does not displace civil liability, that a site sketch alone cannot establish contributory negligence, and fixed the deceased husband's income at Rs 70,000 a month, raising the widow's compensation to Rs 50,81,876 with 6% interest.

On 14 October 2005, at about 1:20 AM on NH-48 near Kunigal, Karnataka, a Hyundai Santro driven by the appellant's husband collided with a KSRTC bus. The husband, aged 30, and the appellant's mother-in-law died; the appellant, a passenger in the car, was injured. The bus driver was later acquitted in the criminal case on 3 October 2008, with the benefit of doubt.

The Tribunal held the bus driver wholly negligent but awarded nothing for loss of dependency on the husband's death, noting that the appellant was herself employed. The Karnataka High Court, by its judgment of 10 January 2025, relied on the scene sketch to hold both drivers equally negligent, assessed loss of dependency at Rs 13,80,267 and then halved the total. The widow, appearing in person, came to the Supreme Court.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a High Court rely on a site sketch and the criminal acquittal of a bus driver to hold a deceased car driver 50% negligent in a motor accident claim?

Negligence in MACT Claims: Preponderance, Not Proof Beyond Doubt

The Court held that the FIR and charge sheet are prima facie evidence of negligence, and that “Criminal proceedings and civil MACT Claim Petitions operate in entirely distinct legal realms”. The High Court wrongly treated an acquittal on benefit of doubt as an honourable one. Claims before the Tribunal are decided on a preponderance of probability, and a topographical site sketch cannot, without corroborating evidence, establish contributory negligence. The Tribunal's finding of 100% negligence on the bus driver was restored.

Allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, in view of the welfare nature of the Motor Vehicles Act and 21 years of pendency, the Court rejected both the claimed Rs 1–1.5 lakh and a notional Rs 20,000 per month. Relying on the husband's degree, software experience and invoices, it fixed his income at Rs 70,000 a month, deducted tax, added 40% future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 17. It relied on, among others, Sunita v. RSRTC, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance and Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 07 SC CK 0032.

What the Court Actually Held

• The Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the bus driver's rash and negligent driving was restored.
• Compensation for the husband's death was fixed at Rs 50,81,876, including Rs 52,000 for consortium and Rs 19,500 for funeral and transport.
• Interest at 6% per annum runs from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
• In the connected appeals, the High Court's compensation was confirmed but made payable exclusively by KSRTC.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It confirms that a criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt does not defeat a MACT claim.
• It warns Tribunals and High Courts against finding contributory negligence from a sketch alone.
• It shows how documentary proof can lift income assessment above notional figures.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Claimants

• Rely on the FIR and charge sheet as prima facie proof of negligence.
• Seek leave for additional evidence on income where the record is thin; the Court allowed it after 21 years.

For Insurers and Transport Corporations

• Do not rest a contributory negligence plea only on a site sketch or an acquittal.
• Raise policy defences before the Tribunal; the Court found an untried policy objection untenable.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. The Court held that criminal and MACT proceedings operate in distinct realms, and the acquittal here was only on benefit of doubt.

Preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court made the compensation payable exclusively by KSRTC.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →