Contributory negligence cannot be presumed without specific pleadings and corroborative evidence from the insurance company.

The Appellants (claimants), legal representatives of the deceased Nandkumar Pal, challenged the award dated 18.07.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 628/2016.

The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of ₹12,40,000/- but reduced it to ₹6,20,000/- after attributing contributory negligence to the deceased based on a Final Report (Ex.-D/2).

The Appellants sought an enhancement of compensation and the setting aside of the finding of contributory negligence, contending that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to support such a plea.

Whether the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was legally sustainable in the absence of specific pleadings and evidence by the Insurance Company.

Whether the monthly income of the deceased was correctly assessed by the Claims Tribunal for the purpose of calculating compensation.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Supreme Court precedents of Prabhavati v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (2025) and Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013), which establish that contributory negligence cannot be assumed without direct or corroborative evidence.

Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015), holding that a mere allegation is insufficient to presume rash and negligent driving by both parties.

The Court observed that Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) failed to make specific pleadings or lead evidence regarding contributory negligence.

The Tribunal’s reliance on the Final Report (Ex.-D/2) was deemed perverse as the document was not proved by witness testimony.

Regarding quantification, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased's monthly income at ₹8,000/- to be inadequate; it revised this to ₹10,000/- per month based on prevailing minimum wages at the time of the accident.

Applying a 25% addition for future prospects and a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses with a multiplier of 13, the Court recalculated the loss of dependency and increased the consortium award to ₹40,000/- for each of the four claimants.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹12,40,000/- (of which only 50% was initially payable) to a full award of ₹16,52,500/-.

The Court directed the respondents to pay the additional amount of ₹10,32,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim application within three months. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications.