Contributory negligence requires cogent proof that the victim’s conduct causally contributed to the accident.

On 5 May 2015, 17-year-old Sagar Sharma, a matriculate student, was struck by a Tata 909 truck while standing near a parked scooter and later died from his injuries

The MACT awarded Rs. 8,24,000 with interest at 9% per annum, having attributed 30% contributory negligence to the deceased

His parents appealed, challenging the assessment of income, the denial of future prospects, and the finding of contributory negligence

1. Whether the MACT had sufficient evidence to attribute 30% contributory negligence to the deceased

2. Whether compensation for loss of dependency should be recalculated using matriculate minimum wages, future prospects, and the applicable multiplier, and whether the other compensation heads required adjustment

Under Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436, absence of a driving licence, by itself, does not establish contributory negligence; negligence must have contributed to the accident.

The Court, relying on Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kusum (2026:DHC:6915), stated that contributory negligence requires proof of the victim’s negligent act or omission and a causal connection to the accident or injury; the party alleging it bears the burden of proof.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, loss of dependency is calculated by assessing income, adding future prospects, deducting personal expenses, and applying the appropriate multiplier.

The Court applied 40% future prospects, a one-half deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier 18 to the deceased’s income.

It also relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, in removing loss of love and affection, while allowing consortium to the parents and conventional sums for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

The site plan and the location of the scooter and blood spots did not establish that the deceased had been driving the scooter.

The driver and owner neither gave evidence nor alleged in their written statement that the deceased was riding it; the mechanical inspection recorded damage to the scooter’s rear.

The Court therefore found no evidentiary basis for contributory negligence, and held that even lack of a valid licence would not suffice without a causal connection to the accident.

For dependency, it used the matriculate minimum wage of Rs. 10,478 per month, added 40% future prospects, deducted one-half for personal expenses, and applied multiplier 18.

It removed the award for loss of love and affection and recalculated the other conventional heads.

It ordered the enhanced amount to be deposited and directed release of Rs. 2,00,000 to the claimant, with the balance and accrued interest placed in successive fixed deposits; the original award remained subject to the MACT’s disbursal scheme.

The appeal was disposed of.