Contributory negligence must be proved; a head-on collision alone cannot justify compensation deduction.

On 02.04.2018, Abdul Mannan Akand was riding his motorcycle from Chenga towards Barpeta when a Tata Star Bus bearing Registration No. AS-01-FC-4588, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided head-on with his motorcycle at Chenga Barbhita Para. He sustained fatal injuries and was declared brought dead at Chenga B.P.H.C.

An FIR was registered as Tarabari P.S. Case No. 87/2018 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed against the bus driver.

The deceased’s wife and daughters filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, assessed the total compensation at Rs.17,20,000 but deducted 50% on the ground of contributory negligence by the deceased, awarding Rs.8,60,000 with 9% annual interest.

The claimants challenged the deduction in the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 governs claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents, while Section 173 provides the statutory right of appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

The Court reiterated that negligence in a claim under Section 166 is established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It further applied the rule that contributory negligence must be specifically pleaded and proved by the party asserting it; a mere pleading or the fact of a head-on collision is insufficient to justify a deduction from compensation.

The criminal case registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and the charge-sheet against the bus driver were treated as relevant materials supporting the finding of negligence against the offending vehicle’s driver.

The Tribunal had relied principally on the damage to the front of the motorcycle and the left frontal side of the bus to infer that both drivers were equally negligent.

The High Court found this reasoning unsustainable because neither the insurer nor the bus driver adduced evidence proving any negligent act by the deceased, despite having contested the claim.

The Tribunal’s simultaneous observation that the precise manner of the accident was unclear and its conclusion that both drivers were equally responsible was contradictory.

The FIR and charge-sheet against the bus driver supplied sufficient material, on a balance of probabilities, to establish negligence on the part of the bus driver.

Since there was no evidence indicating that the deceased had contributed to the accident, the mere fact of a head-on collision could not support a finding of contributory negligence or a 50% deduction.

The insurer was directed to pay the entire assessed compensation of Rs.17,20,000, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the outstanding amount before the High Court Registry within six weeks, after which it was to be disbursed to the claimants upon verification.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the Tribunal records were directed to be returned.