An insurer’s unsupported plea of contributory negligence cannot reduce motor accident compensation.

Narendra Singh Negi, aged 35 years and employed in the Uttarakhand Police, died on 25 March 2017 after a bus bearing registration No. HP-17D-5124 allegedly hit his motorcycle from behind while he was on duty.

His dependants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the bus driver was rash and negligent, found that the bus possessed valid documents, and awarded ₹74,71,288 with interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the deceased had contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet and that the Tribunal had wrongly granted a 50% addition towards future prospects despite the deceased’s wife receiving a family pension.

The claimants relied on the eyewitness evidence, the police charge sheet, and the fact that the bus had struck the motorcycle from behind.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act over a claim adjudicated under Section 166.

It applied the principle that a plea of contributory negligence must be established by evidence and cannot succeed merely on the basis of a pleading; where the insurer adduces no evidence supporting such negligence, the issue must be decided against it, as recognised in Dinesh Kumar J. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 (1) SCC 750.

The Court further relied on Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992, for the proposition that filing of a charge sheet against the offending driver is sufficient material supporting negligence, even where eyewitness evidence is absent or disputed.

Under Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 (17) SCC 465, receipt of pension or employment by the deceased’s family members does not disentitle them to compensation or invalidate an award of future prospects.

Although the insurer had pleaded contributory negligence in its written statement, it did not adduce evidence to establish that the deceased’s alleged failure to wear a helmet contributed to the accident or to the fatal injuries.

The Tribunal had considered the contention while deciding Issue No. 1 and rejected it.

The High Court found that the police charge sheet, the finding that the bus struck the motorcycle from behind, and the absence of evidence from the insurer supported the conclusion that the bus driver was negligent and that no deduction for contributory negligence was warranted.

On future prospects, the Court held that the wife’s receipt of family pension did not affect the deceased’s earning capacity or the dependants’ entitlement to compensation.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s addition of 50% towards future prospects was not legally erroneous.

It held that contributory negligence had not been proved and that the deceased’s wife’s receipt of family pension did not disentitle the claimants to the addition towards future prospects.

The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was directed to remit the balance compensation to the Tribunal within 45 days.

The mandatory deposit was also directed to be remitted to the Tribunal, and the original record was ordered to be transmitted accordingly.