Burden of proof for contributory negligence lies on the insurer; mere presumptions cannot establish shared liability.

On March 18, 1992, Gulam Moinuddin Nasibdar was fatally struck by a lorry (MH-04-C-181) owned by Respondent No. 1 and insured by Respondent No. 2

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Thane, found the driver negligent but attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased, presuming that as a driver himself, he should have exercised more caution while crossing

The Tribunal estimated the deceased's income at Rs. 2,400/- per month despite a salary certificate (Exhibit-36) showing higher earnings

The Appellants (legal heirs) challenged the finding of contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assigning 50% contributory negligence to the deceased based on presumption in the absence of rebuttal evidence by the insurer

2. Whether the income and age of the deceased were correctly determined for the calculation of compensation

3. Whether the compensation should be enhanced in light of established precedents regarding future prospects and consortium

The Court applied the principle that negligence must be proved by evidence and cannot be based on mere surmise or presumption, as established in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari & Ors.

For the quantification of compensation, the Court relied on the multiplier and deduction framework from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp.

the inclusion of future prospects from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and the awarding of consortium for all claimants per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

The High Court observed that the Insurance Company failed to lead any independent evidence to rebut the Appellants' case or prove negligence by the deceased

The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence was impermissible as it was based solely on the assumption that the deceased, being a driver, should have been more careful

Regarding income, the Court found Exhibit-36 (Transport Labour Board certificate) to be reliable evidence of a monthly salary of Rs. 3,533/-, rejecting the Tribunal’s lower estimate

The Court accepted the age of 30 years based on the post-mortem report and applied a multiplier of 17. It further applied a 40% addition for future prospects and awarded Rs. 48,000/- consortium to each of the five claimants to align with modern benchmarks

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1,48,900/- to Rs. 10,32,636/-, resulting in an enhancement of Rs. 8,83,736/-. The Respondents were directed to pay this amount jointly and severally with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization