A plea of contributory negligence cannot be raised on appeal when abandoned at trial and unsupported by evidence.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Laltu Molla in a road accident on 10 November 2012 involving a Maxi Truck.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹17,83,600 with interest at 7% per annum, finding the deceased’s monthly income to be ₹8,000.

The insurer appealed, disputing contributory negligence, the proof of income in light of an expired trade licence, and the rate of interest.

1. Whether the insurer could raise contributory negligence on appeal when it had not contested the merits before the Tribunal.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income could be disturbed because the trade licence had expired before the accident.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award of interest at 7% should be reduced.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident.

Section 116 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, as described by the Court, requires a licence for businesses declared by State notification to be offensive or dangerous and provides for annual renewal; the Court noted that the licence conditions before it did not specify that non-renewal would attract a penalty.

The Court also applied the principles that a party which chose not to contest the merits before the Tribunal could not raise contributory negligence for the first time on appeal, and that the income assessment should not be displaced absent grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings.

The Tribunal’s record showed that the insurer had confined its submissions to the quantum of compensation and had not contested the merits; it had also adduced no evidence of contributory negligence, and the charge sheet did not indicate such negligence. The Court therefore declined to entertain that plea on appeal.

As to income, although the licence was valid only until March 2012, the deceased’s business had not been specifically challenged in cross-examination, and the insurer produced no evidence that it had ceased because the licence was not renewed. The Court accordingly found no reason to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹8,000.

It nevertheless considered the 7% interest rate excessive and reduced it to 6%.

The insurer was directed to deposit ₹17,83,600 with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim was filed until the date of the High Court’s order, within eight weeks of communication of the order; no further deposit was required if the Tribunal’s award had already been deposited.

The claimants were permitted to withdraw the compensation subject to necessary formalities, with adjustments for any sums already withdrawn; any balance was to be returned to the insurer with accrued interest.