Absence of tangible evidence precludes a finding of contributory negligence in vehicle head-on collision cases.

On October 18, 2014, the claimant, Raj Kumar, was driving an e-rickshaw with three passengers near GTB Hospital, Delhi.

A Mahindra Xylo car, driven by respondent no. 2, collided with the e-rickshaw while traveling on the wrong side of the road at high speed.

The claimant sustained a Grade III B fracture of both leg bones and other associated injuries, resulting in a 61% permanent physical disability in relation to both lower limbs.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 17,10,203/- in compensation, attributing 100% negligence to the Xylo driver and assessing functional disability at 60% for the claimant, who was a driver by profession.

The Insurance Company appealed on grounds of contributory negligence, lack of proof of income, and excessive disability assessment.

Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle or if the claimant was liable for contributory negligence.

Whether the MACT correctly assessed the claimant's functional disability at 60% and his income based on minimum wages for a matriculate.

Whether the claimant is entitled to future prospects and revised compensation.

The court applied the principle that contributory negligence must be specifically pleaded and supported by tangible evidence, as established in *Jiju Kuruvilla v. Kunjujamma Mohan* and *Prabhavathi v. Managing Director, BMTC*, holding that negligence cannot be presumed solely from the position of vehicles in a frontal collision.

Regarding disability, the court relied on *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar*, which distinguishes between permanent physical disability and 'functional disability' (loss of earning capacity) based on the claimant’s vocation.

For the quantification of future prospects, the court applied the mandate of the Constitution Bench in *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*, requiring a 40% addition for victims under 40 years of age.

The court found the Xylo driver's negligence well-established by the site plan, which showed the car on the wrong side of the road, and the unrebutted testimony of PW-1.

Contributory negligence was rejected because the insurer failed to produce the driver or owner as witnesses to provide contrary evidence.

Regarding income, an educational certificate proved the claimant was a matriculate, justifying the use of corresponding minimum wages.

The court upheld the 60% functional disability assessment, noting that for a professional driver, a 61% physical impairment in both lower limbs effectively terminates the ability to drive, thereby fundamentally impacting his livelihood.

Finally, the court noted that the MACT failed to award future prospects, which is a mandatory legal requirement.

It answered that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent and confirmed the 60% functional disability.

The court revised the total compensation from Rs. 17,10,203/- to Rs. 22,23,182/- by adding 40% future prospects.

The Appellant was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest before the MACT within four weeks, with specific directions for the release of a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant and the remainder to be held in FDRs.