Contributory negligence requires proof of the deceased’s fault and cannot rest solely on an alleged collision.

The respondents/claimants filed MAC Case No. 2144/2015 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, seeking compensation for the death of Late Naba Krishna Mahanta in a motor-vehicle accident dated 22.05.2015.

The deceased, a permanent Government employee working as Forester Grade-I, was travelling in a Maruti Alto when it collided with Truck No. AS-08/CC-3071, insured by the appellant-insurer.

The Tribunal awarded ₹45,00,160 with interest at 7% per annum.

On review under Section 152 CPC, the compensation was enhanced to ₹49,61,688 by correcting the deceased’s age and applying 30%, instead of 15%, towards future prospects.

The insurer appealed, alleging contributory negligence of the deceased, failure to deduct income tax, and erroneous award of interest on future prospects.

Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent because the accident involved a head-on collision between the Maruti Alto and the insured truck.

Whether the deceased’s income was required to be reduced by the income tax deducted at source before computing loss of dependency.

Whether 30% addition towards future prospects was applicable, having regard to the deceased’s age and permanent salaried employment.

Whether interest could be awarded on the amount representing future prospects.

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court held that a permanent salaried deceased aged between 40 and 50 years is entitled to a 30% addition towards future prospects.

Contributory negligence must be established on the evidence, and the mere fact of a collision does not justify a deduction where the offending vehicle is proved to have caused the accident; the Court applied the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Actual income-tax liability or deduction evidenced on record must be accounted for in determining the deceased’s net annual income.

The Court further directed that no interest would be payable on the component awarded towards future prospects.

The Court accepted the testimony of PW-1, who was an eyewitness and stated that the Alto was proceeding on its proper side at a normal speed while the truck came onto the wrong side and struck the Alto on the driver’s/rear-right side.

Her evidence remained substantially unrebutted, and the FIR and charge-sheet were directed only against the truck driver.

The insurer’s investigator had not witnessed the accident.

Accordingly, the Court found that the accident was not proved to be a head-on collision caused partly by the deceased, and rejected contributory negligence.

Since the deceased was 46 years old and a permanent Government employee, the Court upheld the 30% addition for future prospects.

It nevertheless corrected the computation by deducting professional tax and the income-tax amount reflected in the exhibited certificate, resulting in a revised loss-of-dependency calculation.

The compensation was recalculated at ₹49,23,460, comprising ₹41,77,308 for loss of dependency, ₹70,000 under conventional heads, and ₹6,76,152 towards medical expenses.

Interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, but excluded from the future-prospects component.

It rejected the insurer’s claim for deduction on account of contributory negligence, upheld the 30% addition for future prospects, and allowed deduction of the proved income-tax amount.

The appellant-insurer was directed to pay ₹49,23,460 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, excluding interest on future prospects.

The insurer was directed to deposit the balance after accounting for the 50% amount already deposited and withdrawn and the ₹15,000 no-fault compensation, within six weeks.

The statutory deposit of ₹25,000 was permitted to be withdrawn, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.