Absence of specific pleading and evidence bars finding of contributory negligence in motor accident claims.

The deceased, Neyajuddin, a truck driver by profession, was involved in a fatal accident on December 7, 2022. While he was attempting to fix a jack rod between his truck and another truck (bearing registration No. CG 13 AH 2982) to tow his vehicle, the driver of the latter drove rashly, crushing him between the two vehicles.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ambikapur, awarded Rs. 25,54,000, having deducted 25% of the assessed compensation on the grounds of contributory negligence.

Both the Insurance Company (seeking reduction) and the claimants (seeking enhancement) filed cross-appeals.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in finding the deceased liable for 25% contributory negligence in the absence of specific pleadings or evidence from the respondents.

2. Whether the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 15,000 and the addition of 50% for future prospects were legally sound.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation for motor accidents.

It relied heavily on the precedent established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700), which dictates the standardization of future prospects: 40% for self-employed individuals or those on fixed salaries under the age of 40, and 50% only for those with "permanent jobs".

The Court also reinforced the principle that contributory negligence must be supported by specific pleadings and Cogent evidence.

The High Court observed that the Insurance Company failed to provide specific pleadings or lead evidence from the offending driver to substantiate the claim of contributory negligence; thus, the MACT’s 25% deduction was unsustainable.

Regarding income, the Court upheld the MACT’s finding of Rs. 15,000 per month, noting that the employer's manager had proved the salary certificate and the deceased’s status as a skilled driver.

However, the Court identified a legal error in the application of future prospects. Since the deceased was on a fixed salary (not a "permanent " government-style job), the addition should have been 40% per Pranay Sethi guidelines, rather than the 50% applied by the MACT. The Court further recalculated the multiplier to 15 based on the deceased's age (37 years) as per the driving licence.

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 30,72,000 (an increase of Rs. 5,18,000 over the MACT award). The Insurance Company’s appeal (MAC No. 2403/2024) was dismissed, and the claimants’ appeal (MAC No. 2407/2024) was partly allowed. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest per annum from the date of appeal.