Contributory negligence cannot be imposed absent cogent evidence establishing the deceased’s negligent conduct.

Late Itwari Ram Sahu, aged about 48 years, sustained injuries in a road accident on 24 March 2019 when his motorcycle collided with a car allegedly parked on the road.

He underwent treatment and died on 16 April 2019.

The car driver, Devendra Singh Yadav, was prosecuted, and a charge-sheet was filed against him.

The deceased’s wife and children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal awarded ₹18,54,819, including ₹7,21,069 towards medical expenses, by assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹7,000, applying a 25% addition for future prospects, a one-fourth deduction, and a multiplier of 13.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the deceased was guilty of 50% contributory negligence and that his income had been assessed excessively.

The claimants filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the basis of the applicable minimum wages and higher amounts under conventional heads.

1. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence because his motorcycle collided with a stationary car, warranting apportionment of 50% liability against him?

2. Whether the deceased’s monthly income was correctly assessed at ₹7,000, or whether it ought to be reassessed according to the applicable minimum wages?

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the conventional heads required enhancement in accordance with the governing principles on loss of consortium and other conventional damages?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and applied the principles governing proof and apportionment of contributory negligence, holding that such negligence must be established by cogent evidence and cannot be presumed merely because the deceased’s vehicle collided with a stationary vehicle.

For computation of compensation, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, regarding future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, regarding the appropriate deduction and multiplier; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 1305, regarding compensation for consortium.

The Court also applied the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification prescribing ₹8,140 per month for unskilled labour.

The Court rejected the insurer’s contributory-negligence argument because the claimants’ witnesses were not eyewitnesses, but Khushlal Sahu, examined as AW-3, testified that he had travelled with the deceased, heard the collision, and subsequently found the deceased injured.

His testimony remained unrebutted.

The FIR and final report supported the prosecution of the car driver, while neither the driver nor the owner adduced evidence establishing negligence by the deceased.

Accordingly, there was no cogent material to justify reducing the insurer’s liability.

On quantum, the Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹7,000 per month was below the applicable minimum wage of ₹8,140 for an unskilled labourer.

Applying a 25% increase for future prospects, deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency was recalculated at ₹11,90,475.

The Court also enhanced the conventional heads from ₹1,10,000 to ₹1,90,000, while maintaining the undisputed medical expenses of ₹7,21,069.

The claimants’ cross-appeal was partly allowed.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹18,54,819 to ₹21,01,544, resulting in an additional amount of ₹2,46,725.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

All other conditions of the Tribunal’s award were maintained.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.