A tribunal cannot attribute contributory negligence where the evidence establishes the defendant’s sole negligence.

The appellant, aged 25, sustained injuries when his Maruti car collided with a truck on National Highway No. 8.

He claimed that the truck driver caused the accident by driving rashly and negligently.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,42,400, assessed 20% contributory negligence against the appellant, and ordered interest at different rates for different periods.

The appellant challenged the findings on negligence and the assessment of compensation, including income and future prospects.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.

The Court applied the evidentiary principle that an adverse inference may be drawn where the best available evidence is withheld; it also considered the claimant’s unchallenged testimony and the contemporaneous police records in determining negligence.

On compensation, the Court referred to S. Mohammed Hakim v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 263, in connection with notional income, and assessed future prospects, multiplier, disability and other heads of compensation on the evidence before it.

The Tribunal’s judgment was internally inconsistent: it found the truck driver solely negligent in paragraph 13 but attributed 20% negligence to the appellant in paragraph 16.

The appellant’s testimony that the truck driver caused the accident was not challenged on contributory negligence, the driver did not testify, and the police records supported the appellant’s account.

The Court therefore set aside the contributory-negligence finding and held the truck driver solely liable.

For compensation, it accepted monthly income of Rs. 3,000, applied 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 18, and accounted for 15% disability, medical expenses, actual loss of income, pain and suffering, and diet and attendant charges.

This resulted in total compensation of Rs. 4,22,080.

Finding no justification for the Tribunal’s two different interest rates, the Court substituted a uniform rate of 9% per annum.

The Court held the truck driver solely responsible for the accident, modified the award to total compensation of Rs. 4,22,080, and directed payment of additional compensation of Rs. 1,79,680 with interest at 9% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount with the Tribunal within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after verification.