Contributory negligence cannot be imposed on a claimant-driver based solely on conjectures and surmises.

On 10 July 2004, at approximately 9:45 p.m., the appellant and other claimants were travelling in Ambassador car No. GJ-3 AB-2972 on the Morvi–Rajkot road.

Truck No. GTY 7039, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, collided with the car; a rickshaw subsequently collided with the car from behind.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 540 of 2004, awarded Rs. 2,93,250, while attributing 15% contributory negligence to the driver of the Ambassador car.

The claimant challenged the adequacy of compensation and the finding of contributory negligence under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 15% contributory negligence to the driver of the Ambassador car?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and fair, or required enhancement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Whether the claimant was entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation and consequential directions for deposit and disbursement?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It reiterated that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and that compensation must be just, fair, reasonable, equitable, and assessed liberally rather than narrowly.

Relying on Vimladevi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 186, the Court held that claim proceedings are intended to provide solace to accident victims and do not require strict compliance with procedural rules applicable to ordinary civil suits.

Under Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, a Claims Tribunal is not strictly bound by pleadings and must determine fair compensation on the basis of whether the accident resulted from the negligence of a motor-vehicle driver.

The Court also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 INSC 889, for the principles that a charge-sheet constitutes a prima facie case of negligence, criminal acquittal does not displace prima facie civil liability, and scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle positions cannot, by themselves, establish contributory negligence against a smaller vehicle.

The Court found that the truck driver had not contested the claim, filed no written statement, and did not enter the witness box.

Neither the Insurance Company nor the truck driver produced evidence from the truck driver or the rickshaw driver to rebut the claimant’s case.

The FIR and charge-sheet against the truck driver, together with the absence of rebuttal evidence, supported the conclusion that the truck driver was responsible for the accident.

Applying the principles in Bimla Devi and Reena, the Court held that the Tribunal’s attribution of 15% negligence to the Ambassador driver was based on conjecture and surmise, and that the post-accident position of the vehicles could not by itself establish contributory negligence.

On quantum, the Court recalculated the compensation under separate heads: Rs. 3,42,014 for future loss of income, Rs. 12,000 for actual loss of income, Rs. 25,000 for pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 1,56,000 for medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 for special diet, attendant charges and transportation, and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities.

The total compensation was assessed at Rs. 5,55,014. After deducting the Rs. 2,93,250 already awarded, the additional compensation payable was Rs. 2,61,764.

The Court set aside the finding attributing 15% contributory negligence to the claimant and held the truck driver fully negligent for the accident.

The claimant was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,61,764, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks before the concerned Tribunal.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, including accrued interest, to the claimant by account-payee cheque, NEFT, or RTGS after due verification and compliance with procedure.

The remaining directions of the Tribunal were left undisturbed, subject to deduction of court fees, if payable.