Case at a Glance
A bank inspector standing on the footboard of a crowded Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus was thrown off when the bus grazed a stationary MSRTC bus while overtaking in August 1998. The Tribunal dismissed his claim, noting among other things that no bus registration number was given and that his police statement did not allege negligence. The Bombay High Court reversed the dismissal, holding that negligence can be inferred from circumstances and that omissions in the police statement will not non-suit a claimant. Apportioning negligence 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant, it awarded Rs. 2,10,365 with 7.5% interest.
On 4 August 1998, at about 6:00 p.m., the claimant, then about 54 and working as an Inspector with a co-operative bank, boarded a crowded TMT bus at Gokul Nagar, Thane, and had to stand on the footboard. While overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus, the TMT bus grazed it and he was thrown off. He suffered fractures to both wrists, was hospitalised for 12 days and was later assessed with 30% disability. He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for Rs. 1,25,000.
By award dated 8 December 2006, the Tribunal dismissed the claim. It noted that no registration number of either bus was given, that TMT and MSRTC witnesses said no accident was reported, that neither bus showed a dent, that the claimant was himself at fault for standing on the footboard of a crowded bus, and that the MSRTC driver was not negligent as his bus was stationary. The claimant appealed in 2008.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a claimant’s failure to allege negligence in his police statement, or to give the bus registration number, defeat a motor accident claim, and how should negligence be apportioned when the claimant was standing on the footboard?
Preponderance of Probability, Not Strict Proof
Relying on Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 04 SC CK 0030, the Court reiterated that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not always be possible, and claims are decided on preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the claimant’s police statement described the TMT bus overtaking the stationary MSRTC bus but did not allege negligence, and held: “Even though there is no mention about negligence, the Court can infer on the basis of circumstance.” The statement is only one circumstance to be weighed with the oral evidence, and “not mentioning the TMT bus or the MSRTC bus driver in the Police statement will not non suit the claimant.”
The Court also held that the claimant need not prove the registration number; describing the vehicle as a TMT or MSRTC bus was sufficient in the circumstances. It considered TMT’s reliance on Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 12 SC CK 1685, Vanita v. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 09 BOM CK 0091 and Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of A.P., and the claimant’s reliance on Kalim Khan v. Fimidabee, (2018) 07 SC CK 0020. The MSRTC driver was exonerated as his bus was stationary and not shown to be wrongly parked. Since the claimant chose to stand on the footboard of a crowded bus, negligence was apportioned 25% to him and 75% to the TMT driver. Using Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Court computed compensation under heads including three months’ loss of income, medical bills, future medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
What the Court Actually Held
- Negligence can be inferred from the circumstances even if the claimant’s police statement does not expressly allege it; such an omission does not non-suit the claimant.
- Failure to give the registration number is not fatal where the vehicle is identified as a TMT bus and the evidence supports its involvement.
- The stationary MSRTC bus’s driver was not negligent; negligence was apportioned 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant for standing on the footboard.
- The appeal was allowed: Respondents 1 (TMT) and 3 (Director of Insurance) must jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,10,365 with 7.5% interest from the date of petition within 12 weeks, after deducting any no-fault amount.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Accident victims often give hurried statements to police; the ruling confirms those statements are not to be read like pleadings to defeat a genuine claim.
- Commuters injured on crowded public buses get a clear statement that the operator remains liable even if the passenger shares some blame.
- It is a reminder of the human cost of delay: a 1998 accident and a 2008 appeal reached a final decision only in 2026.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- If you were injured in a public bus accident, identify the operator (e.g. TMT, MSRTC) even if you do not know the registration number.
- Gaps in your initial police statement can be explained through oral evidence at trial.
For Counsel
- Cite Bimla Devi on preponderance of probability and ask the Tribunal to infer negligence from the circumstances.
- Anticipate a contributory negligence finding for footboard travel and prepare the computation accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- Police statements are one circumstance, not the whole case.
- Registration number is not essential if the vehicle is otherwise identified.
- Footboard travel led to 25% contributory negligence.
- Rs. 2,10,365 awarded with 7.5% interest, payable within 12 weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a motor accident claim rejected if the police statement does not mention the driver’s negligence?
Not according to this Bombay High Court judgment. The Court held that negligence can be inferred from circumstances and the omission in the police statement does not non-suit the claimant.
Do I need the bus registration number to claim compensation?
In this case the Court held the claimant need not prove the registration number; describing the bus as a TMT bus was sufficient on the evidence. Each case depends on its facts.
Is a passenger standing on the footboard partly to blame?
Here the Court held the claimant 25% negligent for standing on the footboard of a crowded bus and the TMT bus driver 75% negligent.
Conclusion
The judgment corrects a technical approach to a commuter’s injury claim. By reading the police statement as just one piece of evidence and applying the preponderance-of-probability standard, the Bombay High Court restored a claim that had been dismissed outright nearly two decades ago.
Practical takeaway: Tribunals should evaluate accident claims on the whole evidence; claimants should lead clear oral evidence explaining how the accident happened, especially where early statements are brief.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com