A claimant standing on the roadside cannot be assigned contributory negligence without evidence of fault.

The appellant challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of ₹1,66,439 with 9% annual interest in a motor accident claim.

The Tribunal had attributed 90% negligence to the truck driver and 10% to the claimant, who was standing on the road when struck by the truck.

It assessed the claimant’s disability at 12%, although the claimant had sustained 32% disability in the left lower limb. The claimant appealed seeking enhanced compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 10% contributory negligence to a claimant who was standing on the road when struck by a truck

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement to provide just and fair compensation

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Act is beneficial legislation, and compensation must be just, fair, reasonable, and equitable; a Tribunal must make a liberal and realistic assessment rather than a niggardly one, and should endeavour to award just compensation.

The judgment notes that the Tribunal referred to Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298, but does not identify a specific principle from that decision as the basis for the High Court’s determination.

The High Court considered the 10% negligence finding unjustified because the claimant was standing on the side of the road when the truck struck him; it therefore set that finding aside.

Applying the principle that compensation under the Act must be just and fair, and considering the claimant’s injuries and disability, the Court concluded that a global award of ₹2,35,000 was appropriate.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal’s remaining directions were preserved, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount in accordance with the order.