Driving without a licence, by itself, does not establish contributory negligence in motor accident claims.

On 16 July 2023, the appellant-claimant, Samuvel, was riding his motorcycle when the first respondent’s motorcycle allegedly collided with it due to rash and negligent driving.

The claimant sustained serious head injuries, fractures, and other bodily injuries, requiring surgical treatment and prolonged hospitalisation.

He claimed ₹30,00,000 as compensation, asserting that he was a 41-year-old loadman earning ₹25,000 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found the first respondent negligent but attributed 20% contributory negligence to the claimant on the basis that he did not possess a valid driving licence.

It awarded ₹7,89,932, directing the insurer to pay 80%, namely ₹6,31,946.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement, particularly in relation to income, permanent disability, pain and suffering, extra nourishment, and attendant charges.

Whether the claimant’s absence of a valid driving licence, without proof that it contributed to the accident, justified fastening 20% contributory negligence upon him.

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

Compensation must be just and reasonable, based on the claimant’s established or reasonably assessable income, period of loss of earnings, medical evidence, permanent disability, and the nature of the injuries.

The Court relied on Pradeep v. M. Natarajan and Another, CMA No. 1759 of 2023, for assessing compensation for permanent disability on a percentage basis.

It further applied Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436, which holds that driving without a licence is an offence but, by itself, does not establish negligence or contributory negligence unless the absence of a licence is shown to have contributed to the accident.

The Court found the Tribunal’s notional monthly income of ₹12,000 inadequate for a 41-year-old claimant injured in an accident occurring in 2023, notwithstanding the absence of documentary proof of his avocation or income.

It therefore enhanced the notional income to ₹18,000 and increased loss of earnings for three months from ₹36,000 to ₹54,000.

Considering the claimant’s head injuries, fractures, surgery, and 20% permanent disability assessed by the Medical Board, the Court enhanced the disability rate from ₹7,000 to ₹10,000 per percentage, resulting in ₹2,00,000 under that head.

It also enhanced pain and suffering to ₹75,000, extra nourishment to ₹50,000, and attendant charges to ₹50,000, while maintaining the remaining amounts.

On contributory negligence, the Court held that the insurer had not examined an independent witness and that the claimant’s lack of a driving licence did not, without proof of causal negligence, justify a 20% deduction.

Applying Sudhir Kumar Rana, it set aside the deduction.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹7,89,932 to ₹9,42,932, rounded off to ₹9,43,000.

The finding imposing 20% contributory negligence on the claimant was set aside, and the second respondent-insurer was directed to pay the entire sum of ₹9,43,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, after deducting any amount already deposited.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within four weeks of receiving the order, following which the claimant could withdraw it in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.

No costs were awarded.