Contributory negligence cannot be attributed without cogent evidence establishing the claimant’s role in the accident.

On 15 April 2019, Ashok was injured when his motorcycle collided with an NWKRTC bus.

He claimed that the bus driver caused the accident by driving rashly and negligently.

The Tribunal awarded him ₹6,96,513 with interest at 9% per annum.

Ashok appealed seeking enhancement; NWKRTC appealed disputing negligence, the quantum of compensation and the interest rate.

The High Court noted that Ashok was described as 47 years old in the cause title, but assessed compensation on the basis that he was 49 at the time of the accident.

1. Whether the motorcycle rider contributed to the accident through his own negligence, and, if so, to what extent?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive or inadequate?

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award of interest at 9% per annum was excessive?

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the general evidentiary principle that a party alleging contributory negligence must establish it with cogent evidence; the mere production of documents does not prove their contents or establish negligence.

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the claimant’s income, functional disability, age and applicable multiplier, along with the evidence of injuries, treatment and medical expenses.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

NWKRTC relied on photographs, a sketch and a private complaint to allege that the motorcycle rider crossed the median and caused the collision.

The Court found that the photographs did not establish where the accident occurred or show a road median; the sketch was undated, its author was not examined, and no bus passenger was called to support NWKRTC’s account.

The charge sheet against the bus driver remained unchallenged.

The Court therefore found no adequate basis to attribute contributory negligence to Ashok.

On compensation, it considered the multiple fractures, surgery, 41-day hospitalisation and medical records, assessed functional disability at 18%, and used monthly income of ₹13,250 and a multiplier of 13 to calculate future income loss.

It enhanced compensation for pain and suffering and awarded amounts for amenities, laid-up-period income and nutrition, while retaining the Tribunal’s medical-expense assessment.

It considered 6% per annum appropriate interest.

It reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum.

Both appeals were allowed in part; NWKRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within eight weeks, and the Tribunal was directed to draw a modified award.