An injured eyewitness’s unrebutted testimony establishes negligence absent evidence of contributory negligence.

On 30 July 2006, Mayank Pandey was riding his motorcycle with his mother, Malti Pandey, as pillion rider, when truck no. HR-47-8002 allegedly overtook the motorcycle from the left and suddenly applied its brakes, causing a collision.

Mayank sustained multiple injuries, while Malti died eight days later, on 3 August 2006.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District, awarded ₹4,21,000 to Malti’s legal representatives and ₹6,35,000 to Mayank, both with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Insurance Company challenged liability and the findings on negligence, including the plea of contributory negligence. The claimants filed cross-appeals seeking enhancement.

The Tribunal had also granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the driver and owner.

Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck was sustainable despite the sparse reasoning and delayed registration of the FIR?

Whether Mayank Pandey was guilty of contributory negligence warranting reduction of his compensation?

Whether the compensation awarded for Malti Pandey’s death required recalculation in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680?

Whether the compensation awarded to Mayank Pandey for his injuries required enhancement or reduction?

The Court applied the principles governing motor accident claims, under which negligence is determined on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that the Tribunal must nevertheless provide a reasoned and evidence-based analysis of negligence, particularly where liability is disputed.

The Court also applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects, deductions for personal and living expenses, multiplier selection and conventional heads of compensation.

A plea of contributory negligence must be supported by evidence and cannot succeed merely by assertion.

Although the Court criticised the Tribunal for deciding negligence in an excessively summary manner, it declined to remand the matter because the accident had occurred in 2006 and the appeals had remained pending for approximately a decade.

Mayank, an injured eyewitness, consistently testified that the truck first struck the motorcycle from behind, overtook it from the left and immediately applied its brakes while being driven at high speed.

His testimony was not materially challenged in cross-examination, and the driver and owner did not appear to rebut it.

The delayed FIR did not displace his account, particularly since the DD entry, medical records, death certificate and post-mortem report supported the occurrence and consequences of the accident.

In the absence of evidence establishing any want of care by Mayank, the plea of contributory negligence was rejected.

For Malti, the Court recalculated compensation by adding 10% future prospects, deducting one-third towards personal expenses, applying a multiplier of 11, and awarding compensation under consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

Since no submissions were made on behalf of Mayank in support of enhancement, his Tribunal award was maintained.

Mayank Pandey’s compensation of ₹6,35,000 was affirmed.

Malti Pandey’s compensation was enhanced from ₹4,21,000 to ₹4,80,400, resulting in an enhancement of ₹59,400, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks and released to the claimants thereafter.

The balance compensation already deposited was also directed to be released in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment orders.

All four appeals were disposed of, pending applications were rendered infructuous, and the Insurance Company’s statutory deposit was directed to be refunded subject to compliance with the deposit order.