Contributory negligence cannot be imposed without sustainable evidence and cannot rest on surmises.

On 17 December 2008, Manubhai Bhopabhai Songara, aged approximately 25 years, was riding a motorcycle near the GSPC gas pump on the outskirts of Village Baldana when a truck/trolley emerging from a nearby hotel collided with his motorcycle, causing fatal injuries.

The deceased was claimed to be working as a diamond polisher and earning Rs.4,500 per month. His dependants comprised his widow, two minor daughters and both parents

The claimants instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs.9 lakhs with interest.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.3,70,600 with 9% interest, after assessing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.2,800, applying a multiplier, and deducting 20% towards contributory negligence.

The claimants challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally disputing the finding of contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased in the absence of supporting oral or documentary evidence?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate because of the incorrect assessment of income, deduction towards personal expenses, and failure to properly assess compensation under the non-pecuniary heads?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, governing appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal, and the principles applicable to determination of “just compensation” under Section 166.

It held that contributory negligence cannot be imposed on a claimant merely on the basis of conjecture or surmise and must be established by reliable evidence

In assessing income, the Court relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Babahai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, for the principle that, in the absence of evidence of actual income, the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker should be considered

For compensation under future prospects, personal expenses and consortium, the Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, including the principles relating to spousal, parental and filial consortium

The Court found that the Tribunal had recorded the 20% deduction for contributory negligence without identifying or relying upon any evidence.

The offending driver neither defended the proceedings nor entered the witness box, and no oral or documentary evidence was produced to establish negligence on the deceased’s part

On the contrary, the FIR indicated that the offending vehicle had emerged from the hotel premises and entered the main road rashly and without sufficient care.

The finding of contributory negligence was therefore held to be based on conjecture and was set aside

For quantum, the Court substituted the Tribunal’s income assessment of Rs.2,800 per month with Rs.3,633 per month, stated to be the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat in 2008.

Considering the deceased’s age of 25 years, it applied a multiplier of 18.

Since the deceased left behind five dependants, the Court treated the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses as one-fourth rather than one-third

It further revised consortium by awarding Rs.48,400 to each of the five claimants—spousal consortium to the widow, parental consortium to the children and filial consortium to the parents—and recalculated funeral expenses and loss of estate

The resulting compensation was assessed at Rs.10,63,028, from which the Tribunal’s award of Rs.3,70,600 was deducted

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was 20% contributorily negligent

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.10,63,100 approximately, and the claimants were awarded an additional rounded amount of Rs.6,92,500, carrying 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 12 weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, subject to verification and deduction of applicable court fees.