Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Imputed to Pedestrians Struck Near Footpaths on Sufficiently Wide Roads

On February 25, 2013, four family members (V.N. Bansal, Dropti Bansal, Meena Bansal, and Poonam Bansal) alighted from a DTC bus at Dwarka and were walking near the footpath toward a zebra crossing.

A Santro car driven by Respondent No. 1 crashed into them, resulting in the deaths of Dropti and Meena Bansal, and injuries to V.N. and Poonam Bansal.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation on October 27, 2014, but applied a 10% deduction for contributory negligence and, in Dropti’s case, a 50% deduction for her status as a homemaker.

1. Whether the claimants were liable for 10% contributory negligence based on the site of the accident.

2. Whether the notional income of the deceased Meena Bansal, a B.Ed. graduate, should include earnings from private tuitions despite limited documentary evidence.

3. Whether a 50% deduction in dependency is permissible solely because the deceased (Dropti Bansal) was a 65-year-old homemaker.

4. Whether the non-pecuniary damages and loss of income for the injured Poonam Bansal required enhancement due to prolonged hospitalization and treatment.

The court primarily applied the principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).

Standardized future prospects (25% for self-employed/fixed salary aged 40–50) and conventional heads like loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs. 15,000 each).

Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) for standardized deductions for personal expenses (1/2 for cases with no dependents).

Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2026), allowing for "intelligent guesswork" and oral testimony in the absence of strict documentary proof for income estimation in the informal sector.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) were applied to delete "loss of love and affection".

The Court set aside the 10% contributory negligence, noting the site plan showed the claimants were near the footpath on a 30-foot-wide road, and thus not "jaywalking".

Regarding Meena Bansal, the Court accepted oral testimonies of parents (PW-3 and PW-4) to add Rs. 5,500/month for private tuitions to her last proven salary, totaling a benchmark income of Rs. 20,500.

In Dropti Bansal’s case, the Court held that the MACT’s 50% deduction for her being a homemaker had "no basis" in law; however, since her children were all majors, a 1/2 deduction for personal expenses was applied per Sarla Verma.

For the injured Poonam Bansal, the Court found the initial award for "pain and suffering" inadequate given she was on a ventilator and underwent six months of treatment, justifying an increase in both non-pecuniary heads and loss of income duration.

In MAC.APP. 230/2015, the compensation was increased from Rs. 14,87,700 to Rs. 34,18,792. In MAC.APP. 231/2015, the 50% "homemaker deduction" was removed, resulting in a revised total of Rs. 5,66,336. In MAC.APP. 236/2015, non-pecuniary damages were increased, enhancing the total to Rs. 5,29,698.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with 7.5% interest within four weeks.