Consistent repayment of substantial loan instalments may establish earning capacity for motor-accident compensation.

On 16 March 2013, Dhyanendra Singh’s Tata 407 collided with a dumper parked on the road; he later died from his injuries.

The MACT awarded the claimants ₹63,10,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging the findings on negligence and the assessment of compensation.

The deceased was 23, a professional driver and graduate.

Although documentary proof of income was absent, evidence showed he had taken a vehicle loan and was paying monthly instalments of ₹15,344.

1. Whether the MACT was right to find the dumper’s driver negligent and decline to reduce compensation for contributory negligence by the deceased.

2. Whether the MACT’s assessment of the deceased’s income and the resulting compensation required modification.

Negligence in a motor accident claim is assessed on a preponderance of probabilities.

For contributory negligence, the court should apportion damages by considering causation and the parties’ relative blameworthiness, rather than applying the discontinued “last opportunity” rule.

In assessing income where documentary proof is unavailable, the tribunal may make an informed estimate from the evidence and surrounding circumstances; minimum-wage rates are not an absolute measure.

Compensation components are to be aligned with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur: future prospects, consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are assessed under the applicable standardized principles, with no separate award for loss of love and affection.

The dumper had been left unattended on a major road in the early morning, close to the central verge, without reliable evidence that warning lights or other signals were operating.

The driver’s statement to police indicated that he had not placed a reflector, branch or other warning behind it, and he did not testify before the MACT to substantiate his contrary assertion.

On the overall evidence, the court found the dumper driver negligent and no basis to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased.

On income, the loan evidence, the deceased’s occupation and his wife’s testimony supported the MACT’s estimate of ₹25,000 per month despite the absence of income-tax or other documentary records; the court therefore rejected the insurer’s challenge to that figure.

It nevertheless recalculated compensation by reducing future prospects from 50% to 40% and adjusting the conventional heads in accordance with the cited authorities.

It directed deposit of the balance revised compensation, with accrued interest, within four weeks and ordered its release in accordance with the MACT award.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.