Absence of evidence proving fault precludes reduction of motor accident compensation on grounds of contributory negligence.

The appellant insurance company filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 23.11.2019 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur

The Tribunal had allowed the claim petition (Case No. 52/2019) filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, Pravin Kumar Bhagat, and fastened the liability for compensation solely upon the insurance company

The insurance company contended that the accident was a "head-on collision" and therefore the deceased was contributorily negligent

1. Whether the deceased driver was contributorily negligent in the accident, necessitating a 50% reduction in the compensation amount?

The Court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals

the burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the party alleging it.

The court emphasized that mere pleadings of "head-on collision" are insufficient to establish negligence without substantive evidence or eyewitness testimony

The Court examined the records and noted that while the appellant had raised an alternative plea of contributory negligence in its written statement (para 28(e)), it failed to substantiate this claim with evidence

The insurance company did not examine any eyewitnesses; its only witness was an Investigator, Anup Mehta, who was not present at the time of the accident and thus could not prove the factum of negligence

The Court observed that in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating that the deceased was at fault, the mere occurrence of a collision does not automatically attract the doctrine of contributory negligence

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, thereby upholding the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal