Contributory negligence cannot be imputed without evidence establishing the deceased’s contribution to the accident.

On 1 February 2013, a motorcycle and an Eicher truck were involved in an accident in which the motorcycle rider died.

The deceased was approximately 56 years old and employed with the Government. His widow and two children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal attributed 95% negligence to the Eicher truck driver and 5% contributory negligence to the deceased, assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹30,547, and awarded total compensation of ₹23,14,543.

The claimants appealed, contending that the deceased had not been contributorily negligent and that the Tribunal had assessed his income inadequately.

The High Court considered the deceased’s Form No. 16, which showed a monthly salary of approximately ₹34,000 for the relevant assessment year, and recalculated the compensation.

Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent to the extent of 5% in causing the accident.

Whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the deceased’s income and the consequent loss of dependency/future income.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation under the principles governing future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.

The Court applied the principle that the filing of a charge-sheet against the offending vehicle’s driver constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence, particularly where the driver is not examined.

For computation of compensation, it relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, under which 15% future prospects were added for the deceased, a Government employee aged 56 years, and one-third of the income was deducted towards personal expenses because there were three dependants.

The Court applied a multiplier of 9 for a deceased aged 56 years.

It further relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, read with Pranay Sethi, for awarding compensation towards loss of consortium and the conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding of 5% contributory negligence was unsupported by evidence.

Although the point of impact was near the highway divider, the charge-sheet had been filed against the truck driver, the driver was not examined, and there was no evidence showing any contributory negligence by the deceased; accordingly, the 5% deduction was set aside.

On income, the Court accepted Form No. 16 as evidence of a monthly salary of approximately ₹34,000, calculated the annual income at ₹4,08,000, added 15% towards future prospects, and deducted one-third for personal expenses.

Applying the multiplier of 9, it calculated the loss of future income at ₹28,15,236.

It additionally awarded ₹1,59,720 towards loss of consortium and ₹19,965 each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, resulting in total compensation of ₹30,14,886.

Since the Tribunal had already awarded ₹23,14,543, the claimants were granted an enhanced amount of ₹7,00,343.

The existing interest rate of 9% per annum was affirmed.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire amount to the claimants through RTGS/NEFT upon due verification.