Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to a pillion rider in a motor vehicle accident.

On January 1, 2007, nine-year-old Hiren Gopalbhai (the deceased) was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by his father.

An S.T. bus, driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2, struck the motorcycle from behind, resulting in the death of both the minor and his father.

The Tribunal awarded ₹85,750/- but deducted 30% of the compensation, attributing negligence to the deceased.

The appellant challenged this judgment on the grounds of erroneous negligence attribution and inadequate quantum.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence to a minor pillion rider.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium was just and in accordance with established precedents.

The court applied the principles of negligence and quantum assessment for motor accident claims relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to determine future prospects (40% for the deceased's age group), deduction for personal expenses (1/2 for a bachelor/minor), and fixed amounts for conventional heads (estate and funeral expenses).

The Court further applied Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. regarding parental consortium.

The court invoked the principle from Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (SLP (C) No. 22599/2024), which mandates that contributory negligence cannot be fastened upon a pillion rider absent cogent evidence of their specific act or omission.

The High Court found the Tribunal’s deduction of 30% for negligence legally unsustainable, as the deceased was a nine-year-old pillion rider and the burden of proof for contributory negligence—which the insurer failed to meet—rests on the party alleging it.

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of the minor’s notional income too low. Using the Minimum Wage Rates of Gujarat for 2007, the Court fixed the income at ₹2,600/- per month.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects (totaling ₹3,640/-), deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 15, resulting in ₹3,27,600/- for loss of dependency.

The Court also rectified the omission of consortium and the meagerness of conventional awards by granting ₹48,400/- for consortium and ₹18,150/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It enhanced the total compensation from ₹85,750/- to ₹4,12,300/- (an additional ₹3,26,550/-) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Respondent No. 2 (Gujarat S.T. Corporation) was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks.