A pedestrian’s presence on the roadway alone does not establish contributory negligence.

The claimant sustained fractures to both bones of his left leg when a motorcycle struck him from behind while he was walking on the left side of a road in Bengaluru.

He was treated as an inpatient for eight days.

The Tribunal assessed compensation at ₹5,94,200, but deducted 20% for contributory negligence because the claimant was walking on the tar road rather than the footpath, leaving ₹4,75,360 payable.

The claimant appealed, challenging the negligence finding and seeking enhancement of compensation.

1. Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent merely because he was walking on the tar road, and whether the Tribunal’s 20% deduction should be set aside.

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for injuries caused in a motor accident; the appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Act.

Relying on Smt. K. Anusha & Ors. v. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 (4) TAC 341, the Court stated that contributory negligence requires an act or omission materially contributing to the accident or damage; merely failing to take extraordinary precautions to avoid a collision does not establish it.

The Court also referred to Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104, in upholding the Tribunal’s approach to the multiplier, alongside the KSLSA chart.

The evidence showed that the claimant was walking on the left side of the road when the motorcycle struck him from behind.

The spot sketch placed the accident approximately two feet from the footpath, and the road was 20 feet wide, leaving the motorcyclist room to avoid the collision.

The claimant’s presence on the tar road, without evidence of conduct materially contributing to the accident, did not establish contributory negligence under K. Anusha; the Tribunal’s 20% deduction was therefore erroneous.

However, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 15% whole-body disability, its findings on age, income and multiplier, and the compensation under the other heads as reasonable.

It left the Tribunal’s total compensation of ₹5,94,200 otherwise unaltered and directed the insurance company to pay the entire amount with interest at 6% per annum; no order as to costs was made.