Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to an injured claimant without supporting evidence.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Tribunal’s award of ₹23,52,450 with 6% annual interest from 15 July 2017 to an injured claimant.

It challenged the award on the grounds of contributory negligence and excessive compensation, particularly the amount attributed to transfer by air ambulance to Delhi.

The High Court noted that the insurer had adduced no evidence of contributory negligence and that the air-ambulance bill and hospital discharge summary had been admitted without objection.

During the appeal, the Court proposed compensation of ₹19,00,000 with 6% annual interest from the claim-filing date; the claimant accepted, while the insurer left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

Whether the Tribunal’s award should be disturbed on the ground of contributory negligence.

Whether the compensation awarded was excessive, including the amount for air-ambulance transfer.

Whether, in light of the parties’ positions on the Court’s proposal, compensation should be modified to ₹19,00,000 with interest.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provided the basis for the appeal.

The Court cited Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another, 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), in considering the proposed modification of compensation accepted by the claimant and not opposed by the insurer.

The judgment also applied the evidentiary principle that a challenge to findings of the Tribunal requires supporting material: the insurer’s unsupported plea of contributory negligence and its challenge to documented medical-transport expenses could not displace the Tribunal’s findings.

The Court rejected the contributory-negligence argument because the insurer had produced no evidence to establish it, and the record disclosed no negligence by the injured claimant.

It likewise rejected the challenge to the air-ambulance expenses because the relevant bill and discharge summary were admitted in evidence without objection, and the insurer produced no contrary material.

The Court then considered its proposed settlement figure: the claimant accepted it, and the insurer did not oppose it, leaving the decision to the Court. Relying on the cited Supreme Court decision and the circumstances before it, the Court found that justice would be served by modifying the award to ₹19,00,000.

The insurer was directed to pay the modified amount within eight weeks; upon deposit, it was to be disbursed to the claimant in accordance with the Tribunal’s award.

The statutory deposit and accrued interest were to be refunded to the insurer upon proof of deposit of the modified compensation before the Tribunal.