Contributory negligence cannot be imposed solely on unproved police papers absent supporting evidence.

On 1 April 2016, Ashwinbhai Mansukhbhai Narodiya was driving Motor Car No. MH-15-BN-2451 near village Kharachiya, opposite Shivabhai’s Hotel, Sardhar. A container bearing registration No. GJ-12-AZ-4041, travelling ahead, allegedly stopped suddenly after its driver applied the brakes, causing the motor car to collide with its rear portion. Ashwinbhai sustained grievous injuries and died as a result of the accident

His heirs and legal representatives filed MACP No. 774 of 2016 claiming compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹4,44,959 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, while attributing 90% contributory negligence to the deceased, principally relying on the FIR and charge-sheet. The claimants challenged that award by filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 90% contributory negligence to the deceased solely on the basis of the FIR and charge-sheet, without examining the container driver or other substantive evidence regarding the manner of the accident?

Whether the compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads, including consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, required reconsideration in light of the applicable law on periodic enhancement of such amounts?

Whether the impugned award was required to be set aside and the claim petition remanded for fresh adjudication?

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

It relied on the principles governing contributory negligence, including Section 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989, as discussed in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Amdaram Hiraram (Deleted), 2025 (1) GLR 297. The Court also referred to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kalu Ram, 2026 INSC 653, concerning the evidentiary and legal assessment of contributory negligence. Further, relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it held that the amounts payable under non-pecuniary heads must reflect the prescribed 10% enhancement at the end of every three years.

The underlying rule was that contributory negligence could not be imposed merely on the basis of police papers, particularly where the opposing driver did not enter the witness box and the insurer did not lead evidence to establish the alleged negligence.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly examined the allegation of contributory negligence and had instead been “swayed” by the fact that the FIR and charge-sheet were filed against the deceased.

The container driver neither entered the witness box nor denied the allegation that he had abruptly stopped the container, and the insurance company also failed to adduce evidence discharging its burden concerning the deceased’s alleged negligence. In these circumstances, the Tribunal’s attribution of 90% negligence to the deceased solely on the basis of police investigation papers was held to be erroneous and legally unsustainable. The Court further observed that the Tribunal had awarded only ₹40,000 for consortium and ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, without applying the periodic enhancement contemplated by Pranay Sethi; however, the Court did not finally quantify the compensation because the entire matter required fresh determination by the Tribunal.

The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, uninfluenced by the earlier award, with liberty to both parties to lead further evidence. The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter within three months from 6 October 2026, and both parties were directed to remain present before it on that date. The High Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the compensation claim finally.