An unrebutted chargesheet against the offending driver defeats a finding of contributory negligence.

On 28 July 2006, the claimant’s motorcycle collided with a mini-truck, causing grievous injuries and amputation of his right leg.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the claimant’s disability at 30%, monthly income at ₹7,000, and awarded total compensation of ₹14,30,400. After attributing 10% contributory negligence to the claimant, the Tribunal awarded ₹12,87,400 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

The insurer challenged the finding that the claimant had contributed only 10% to the accident and disputed the amount awarded towards the purchase of an artificial leg. The claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement, including future prospects, higher compensation for pain and suffering, attendant and transportation expenses, and loss of amenities.

Whether the claimant had contributed to the accident and, if so, whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 10% negligence to him?

Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition towards future prospects while computing loss of future income despite the agreed assessment of 30% disability?

Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain, shock and suffering, attendant charges, artificial limbs, and loss of amenities required enhancement?

Whether the insurer’s challenge to the award towards the artificial leg was sustainable in the absence of an actual purchase bill?

The Court applied the principle in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co., 2018 (5) SCC 656, that in motor accident proceedings, the filing of a chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence.

For computation of loss of future income, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, under which future prospects are to be added to the income of an eligible claimant; considering the claimant’s age of approximately 22 years, the applicable addition was 40%.

The Court also applied the established compensatory principle that damages must fairly account for permanent disability, pain and suffering, medical and attendant expenses, prosthetic requirements, and loss of amenities arising from the injury.

The Court held that the chargesheet had been filed against the mini-truck driver and that the driver was not examined to establish any contributory negligence by the claimant. Applying the principle in Mangla Ram, it concluded that the mini-truck driver alone was responsible and set aside the Tribunal’s 10% deduction.

Although the monthly income of ₹7,000 and 30% disability were maintained, the Tribunal had failed to add future prospects. Since the claimant was about 22 years old, the Court added 40%, raising the notional income to ₹9,800 per month; 30% disability therefore resulted in a monthly loss of ₹2,940. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future income was recalculated at ₹6,35,040.

Given the amputation and hospitalisation exceeding 70 days, the Court enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering to ₹1,50,000 and maintained attendant charges at ₹75,000.

It maintained the medical expenses of ₹4,59,800 on the basis of documentary evidence.

The absence of the actual bill for the third artificial leg was not considered fatal because the evidence established that the claimant had previously purchased two artificial legs and was required to obtain another due to a defect; the award of ₹3,50,000 under this head was therefore maintained.

The compensation for loss of amenities was enhanced from ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000 in view of the amputation and 30% disability.

It enhanced the total compensation to ₹19,11,840, resulting in an enhanced amount of ₹6,24,440 over the Tribunal’s award of ₹12,87,400.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, and the insurer was granted ten weeks to deposit it.

The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, the connected civil application was disposed of, and the claimant’s appeal was partly allowed.