Contributory negligence cannot be inferred without cogent evidence establishing the victim’s causal contribution.

On 10 August 2018, Teena Makkar and her sister-in-law, Honey Makkar, were walking near Arya Samaj Mandir, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. A truck bearing registration no. DL-1M-3658, owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and driven by Phool Kumar, allegedly hit Teena, causing her to fall and be run over by the truck’s rear wheel.

She died the same day at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. An FIR under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered on Honey Makkar’s complaint, and a Detailed Accident Report and chargesheet were filed against the driver.

The MACT awarded Rs.1,16,42,016 with interest at 9% per annum to the deceased’s legal representatives.

MCD appealed, disputing negligence, reliance on Honey Makkar’s testimony, absence of CCTV footage, contributory negligence, and the computation of compensation.

Whether the evidence of Honey Makkar, an alleged interested eyewitness, together with the FIR, medical records, site plan and chargesheet, established that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of MCD’s truck.

Whether contributory negligence could be attributed to the deceased merely because she was allegedly crossing near a parked car in a crowded area.

Whether the MACT correctly assessed the deceased’s income, future prospects, personal-expense deduction and non-pecuniary damages.

Proceedings before the MACT are inquisitorial in nature, and negligence is determined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The testimony of a related or interested witness is not liable to be rejected merely on that ground; its credibility must be assessed with reference to cross-examination and corroborative material, including the FIR, medical records and site plan.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply where the accident, such as a heavy vehicle running over a pedestrian, ordinarily would not occur absent negligence, shifting the evidentiary burden to the party controlling the vehicle.

Under Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, contributory negligence requires negligent conduct of the victim that materially contributed to the accident or injury, and the loss may be apportioned only where such negligence is proved.

The burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it and cannot be discharged through conjecture or presumption.

Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 imposes duties on a driver following an accident, while Rule 8 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 and Regulations 5 and 39 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 require drivers to exercise due care, slow down near junctions and pedestrian crossings, and protect vulnerable road users.

Compensation was to be assessed in accordance with Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma and related principles governing future prospects, deductions and conventional heads.

The Court found Honey Makkar’s testimony credible and materially corroborated by the FIR lodged on the date of the accident, the MLC recording that the deceased had been run over by a truck, the nature and location of her injuries, the post-mortem report, and the site plan.

The absence of fresh damage in the mechanical inspection report was immaterial because the collision was between the truck and a pedestrian, not two vehicles.

The alleged contradiction regarding whether the truck approached from the front or struck the deceased from behind was insufficient to displace the consistent core account of the accident.

The Court further held that a truck driver must anticipate pedestrians and maintain control, particularly near a junction and in a crowded urban setting; MCD led no evidence rebutting the inference of negligence or establishing that the deceased’s conduct caused or contributed to the accident.

The deceased’s income was supported by income-tax returns, evidence from the Income Tax Department, corporate records and remuneration documents.

The MACT therefore correctly adopted annual income of Rs.7,70,749, applied 40% future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses and awarded conventional damages consistently with applicable precedent.

The MACT award of Rs.1,16,42,016 with 9% interest was upheld, including the calculation of loss of dependency and non-pecuniary damages.

MCD was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the MACT within four weeks, if not already deposited, for disbursement in accordance with the MACT’s directions.

Any statutory deposit was to be refunded only upon such deposit, and the pending applications were rendered infructuous.