A head-on collision alone does not establish contributory negligence absent supporting evidence.

On 23 January 2011, Thuleswar Das was driving a Maruti Alto bearing registration No. AS-12G-0871 from Bokakhat towards Tezpur on National Highway 37, accompanied by his son, Respondent No. 3. Near Panbari, a bus bearing registration No. AS-01U-3866, allegedly driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, collided with the Alto. Thuleswar Das died at the spot, while his son sustained serious injuries.

An FIR was registered under Sections 279, 338, 304A and 427 of the IPC.

The claimants instituted MAC Case No. 168/2011. The bus driver and owner did not contest the proceedings; the appellant-insurer and Respondent No. 6 filed written statements.

The claimants adduced two witnesses and produced, inter alia, the charge-sheet against the bus driver.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, held the bus solely responsible and awarded compensation of ₹32,31,323, inclusive of no-fault liability, with interest at 7.5% per annum from 23 May 2011 until payment.

The insurer appealed only on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to account for contributory negligence by the Alto driver, contending that the accident involved a head-on collision.

During the appeal, the insurer deposited ₹15,00,000 pursuant to an interim order, and that amount was withdrawn by the claimants.

The Court applied the principle that contributory negligence cannot be inferred merely from the fact of a head-on collision; there must be evidence demonstrating that the claimant or deceased also acted negligently and contributed to the accident.

The burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party raising that defence.

The Court considered Parmila v. Rajender, 2026 INSC 420; Rajo Devi v. Amanjeet Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1174; Thamilarasi v. M. Balakrishnan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3424; and Meera Devi v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 4 SCC 511, concerning the evidentiary requirement for establishing contributory negligence.

The compensation assessment by the Tribunal had relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.

The insurer alleged contributory negligence solely on the basis that the accident was a head-on collision, but it adduced no evidence in support of that defence.

Conversely, the claimant who witnessed the accident testified that the Alto was travelling from Bokakhat towards Tezpur on the left side of the road at a controlled speed, whereas the bus was driven rashly and negligently and collided with the Alto.

His evidence remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination, and the insurer did not even suggest that the Alto was being driven on the wrong side of the road.

Applying the rule that contributory negligence requires affirmative proof and cannot be presumed from the nature of the collision alone, the Court held that no basis existed to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the bus was solely responsible.

The appellant-insurer was directed to deposit, within six weeks, the remaining compensation together with accrued interest after deducting the ₹15,00,000 already deposited.

The MACT was directed to release the deposited amount to the claimants after verification.

The statutory deposit of ₹25,000 was ordered to be refunded to the insurer upon proof of compliance with the deposit direction.

No costs were awarded, and pending applications were closed.