A heavy-vehicle driver’s failure to show due care justified allocating 60% negligence to the lorry.

On 28 November 2009, the appellant was riding a motorcycle when it collided with a median, throwing him and his pillion rider onto the opposite side of the road.

A lorry then ran over their legs; the pillion rider died and the appellant sustained serious injuries, including fractures and amputation of part of his left foot.

The appellant brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal apportioned negligence 60% to the appellant and 40% to the lorry driver and awarded Rs. 4,69,200.

The appellant appealed under Section 173(1), challenging the negligence finding and seeking enhanced compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding on contributory negligence and its apportionment of liability called for modification?

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation?

The claim arose under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of that Act.

In assessing personal-injury compensation, the court considered the claimant’s income, functional disability, age, multiplier, and future prospects; it relied on Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, for the principle that future prospects may be added in personal-injury claims.

The court also assessed negligence from the evidence concerning the accident, including the prosecution records and the circumstances of the collision, and noted the heightened care expected of a heavy-vehicle driver.

The FIR, complaint, charge sheet and spot sketch supported the account that the motorcycle collided with the median and the riders were thrown onto the opposite road; the insurer produced no evidence that the lorry driver had taken due care.

In light of those circumstances and the lorry’s size, the court found the Tribunal’s 60:40 apportionment unjustified and reassigned negligence 40% to the appellant and 60% to the lorry driver.

For compensation, the court found no proof of the claimed monthly income of Rs. 1,00,000 and adopted a notional income of Rs. 5,000 for 2009. Considering the injuries, amputation and restricted movement, it assessed disability at 40%, applied a multiplier of 15 based on age 36, and included 40% future prospects in calculating future loss of income.

It also enhanced amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future medical expenses, and allowed four months’ loss of income during the laid-up period.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks, and the enhanced compensation with interest was ordered to be released to the appellant.