A head-on collision alone does not establish contributory negligence without supporting evidence.

The claimant sought compensation for the death of her husband, Khagen Gogoi, in a collision between his motorcycle and an insured Bolero Camper on 4 March 2015.

She claimed that the deceased, an agriculturist with paddy cultivation and a mini tea garden, earned Rs.12,500 per month.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted monthly income of Rs.12,000 and awarded Rs.29,42,000 with 9% interest.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the income assessment, alleging contributory negligence because the collision was head-on, disputing the relevance of agricultural income loss, objecting to reliance on a photocopy of the post-mortem report, and contesting litigation costs.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer may appeal against a Claims Tribunal award.

In motor accident claims, which are summary and welfare-oriented proceedings, strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply in the same manner as in ordinary civil litigation; the relevant standard is preponderance of probabilities.

A head-on collision, by itself, does not establish contributory negligence: it requires an objective assessment based on evidence, and cannot rest on presumption alone (Parmila v. Rajender; Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan).

For a self-employed agriculturist, income may be assessed robustly where precise documentary proof is unavailable; a village headman’s certificate may be relevant, and agricultural income is not automatically excluded from loss-of-dependency compensation (Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.).

The Court also referred to Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation on multiplier and personal-expense deductions, and Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram on conventional heads of compensation.

The Court rejected contributory negligence because the insurer produced no evidence establishing fault by the deceased; the eyewitness instead testified that the motorcycle was travelling slowly and the Bolero was driven rashly, and that evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination.

The photocopy objection did not undermine proof of death in the accident, which was supported by the eyewitness, the claimant’s evidence, and the accident and police records; the accident-related death was also not disputed before the Tribunal.

On income, the Court distinguished Jasbir Kaur, where the nature of the land and income had not been proved, and found the Gaon Burah’s certificate and evidence of the deceased’s cultivation relevant.

Given the similarity to Rajani, the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.12,000 per month was reasonable; the fact that land remained after the deceased’s death did not defeat the claim for loss of his contribution.

Although the Court noted that future prospects and certain conventional heads could be treated differently, it considered any adjustment academic and insufficient to warrant interference with the award.

It directed the insurer to deposit the balance award, including interest, within 45 days; the deposited amounts were to be released to the claimant upon due identification, and the insurer’s statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 was to be refunded within the same period.