A truck driver is solely liable where the charge sheet and unrebutted eyewitness evidence establish his negligence.

The deceased, aged 53, was killed in a motorcycle–truck collision on 12 January 2009. His wife, children and mother sought compensation.

The Tribunal attributed 10% negligence to the deceased and 90% to the truck driver, assessed his income at ₹70,000 per annum, and awarded ₹6,97,803 in total compensation.

The claimants appealed, challenging the negligence finding and the income assessment. They relied on evidence of the deceased’s agricultural land, truck ownership and payment of substantial fees for his son’s education in London.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased motorcycle rider.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and the resulting compensation required enhancement.

The Court applied the compensation principles in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, including the addition of future prospects and the assessment of conventional heads of compensation.

For a deceased aged 53, the Court applied 10% future prospects and a multiplier of 11; it deducted one-fourth of income towards personal expenses when calculating dependency.

Reading Pranay Sethi with Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, it applied ₹52,000 per eligible claimant for consortium and ₹19,500 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision.

The Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence because the charge sheet had been filed against the truck driver, the driver was not examined to establish negligence by the deceased, and the deceased’s wife—who was riding pillion—testified that the truck driver caused the accident.

On income, it found the Tribunal’s annual assessment of ₹70,000 too low in light of the evidence of the deceased’s land, truck and ability to meet his son’s substantial education expenses.

Taking account of the need to engage someone to manage the agricultural and transport activities, it assessed income at ₹25,000 per month.

Applying the stated future-prospects addition, deduction and multiplier, it calculated future loss of income at ₹27,22,500, and added compensation under the applicable non-pecuniary heads and proven medical expenses.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹30,05,000, substituting the Tribunal’s award of ₹6,97,803.

It directed payment of an additional ₹23,07,200, rounded off, with interest at 9% per annum; the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest within eight weeks of receiving the judgment.

The terms of disbursement were to remain as ordered by the Tribunal, and the appeal was allowed in part.