Absent evidence of contributory negligence, a rear-end collision establishes the bus driver’s 100% negligence.

On 4 July 2023, at about 9:00 p.m., the deceased, aged 19 years, was riding a bicycle when an S.T. bus bearing registration No. GJ-18-Z-7402 struck him from behind, causing fatal injuries.

An FIR was registered against the bus driver, followed by submission of a charge-sheet.

The deceased’s parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that he earned Rs.12,000 per month while working at Vrundavan Sweets and that they were dependent upon him.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.13,60,836 with interest, after attributing 10% contributory negligence to the deceased and assessing his income at Rs.400 for 23 days per month.

The claimants challenged the award on the grounds of contributory negligence and inadequacy of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 10% contributory negligence to the deceased despite the bus having struck him from behind and the police having filed an FIR and charge-sheet against the bus driver?

Whether the Tribunal adopted an erroneous and inadequate income for calculating loss of dependency and whether the compensation required enhancement on the basis of the applicable minimum wages and multiplier?

In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must be just, fair and adequate, and negligence is determined on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Police investigation materials, including the FIR and charge-sheet, may constitute reliable evidence of rash and negligent driving in motor accident proceedings.

Relying on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, reported in 2025 (2) SCC 599, the Court held that such materials can establish negligence and that a subsequent criminal acquittal does not extinguish civil liability.

Relying on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2026 (0) INSC 889, the Court applied the principles that a charge-sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence, criminal acquittal does not displace civil liability, post-impact vehicle positions cannot by themselves establish contributory negligence against a smaller vehicle, and an MACT award cannot be overturned without applying the civil standard of proof.

For computation of compensation, the Court applied the prevailing minimum wages for a skilled worker, along with the appropriate dependency calculation, multiplier and conventional amounts under the heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court found that the deceased was riding a bicycle when the bus hit him from behind and that the FIR and charge-sheet proceeded against the bus driver.

Since no evidence established any negligent conduct by the deceased, the Tribunal had no basis for imposing 10% contributory negligence; the available material instead supported attributing 100% negligence to the bus driver.

On quantum, the Tribunal’s assessment of income at Rs.400 for 23 days was unsupported by reasons and ignored the minimum monthly wages of Rs.12,324 applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant time.

Recalculating the compensation on that basis and applying a multiplier of 18, the Court assessed the total compensation at Rs.19,84,432, inclusive of Rs.88,000 for consortium, Rs.16,500 for loss of estate and Rs.16,500 for funeral expenses.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs.13,60,836, the enhanced compensation came to Rs.6,23,596.

The Court set aside the finding of 10% contributory negligence against the deceased and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.19,84,432, granting an additional Rs.6,23,596 over and above the Tribunal’s award.

The enhanced amount was made payable with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, jointly and severally by the opponents.

Opponent No. 2, GSRTC, was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants following due verification.