Contributory negligence cannot be upheld without evidence led by the insurer.

The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment dated 22 August 2024 of the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, in M.A.C. Case No. 53 of 2023.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹62,68,384 to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, with simple interest at 6% per annum from 18 January 2023 and penal interest at 12% in default of payment within three months.

The insurer challenged the award on the grounds that the inquest report referred to an unknown truck, the FIR did not identify any particular offending vehicle, and the deceased was contributorily negligent.

The insurer, however, had not adduced evidence before the Tribunal to establish these pleas.

Whether the claim could be rejected merely because the inquest report and FIR did not mention the registration number or precise identity of the offending vehicle?

Whether contributory negligence could be attributed to the deceased in the absence of evidence led by the insurer before the Tribunal?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification in the appellate proceedings?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It held that the material question in a motor-accident claim is whether the death resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; omission of the vehicle’s model, make, or registration number in the FIR or inquest report is not, by itself, decisive when the charge-sheet and evidence establish the accident and negligence.

An inquest report is primarily prepared to ascertain the apparent cause and nature of death and need not precisely record the vehicle’s registration number.

Contributory negligence is a question of fact and must be established by evidence; no finding can be recorded merely on the basis of an unsupported plea.

In modifying the compensation pursuant to the parties’ response to the Court’s settlement proposal, the Court relied on Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another, 2018 (2) TAC 22 (SC).

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge because the insurer had not led evidence to prove either the alleged discrepancy concerning the offending vehicle or contributory negligence.

It held that the absence of the vehicle’s registration number from the inquest report or FIR did not undermine the claim, particularly where the charge-sheet indicated that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

Since contributory negligence was a factual plea unsupported by evidence, the Court declined to record such a finding against the deceased.

However, after discussion with counsel, the Court proposed reducing the compensation to ₹56,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum, waiving the penal interest; the claimants accepted the proposal, while the insurer left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

The appeal was disposed of by modifying the compensation from ₹62,68,384 to ₹56,00,000, together with simple interest at 6% per annum from 18 January 2023 until realization, with no penal interest.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount within eight weeks; the amount was to be disbursed proportionately among the surviving claimants, and the statutory deposit with accrued interest was to be refunded upon such deposit before the Tribunal.