Equal apportionment of 50% contributory negligence where both drivers fail to exercise due care at a junction.

On May 13, 2015, Rajuram (deceased) was riding a motorcycle when he collided with a TVS Moped driven by Mansai Rajwade (appellant/owner-driver) near Kapsara Main Road.

Rajuram died at the spot; Mansai sustained a leg fracture and was hospitalized.

Both vehicles were uninsured.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) assessed total compensation at ₹8,26,200/-, but attributed 75% contributory negligence to the deceased, awarding the claimants only 25% (₹2,06,550/-).

Both parties appealed: the owner challenged the 25% negligence attributed to him, while the claimants challenged the 75% contributory negligence and sought enhancement of compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in its apportionment of contributory negligence between the deceased motorcyclist and the moped driver.

2. Whether the monthly income and compensation heads, including future prospects, were correctly assessed by the Tribunal.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals.

It relied on the principle of "Preponderance of Probability" to determine negligence in the absence of conclusive eye-witness testimony.

Regarding quantum, it followed the precedents of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) for the multiplier method.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) for the addition of 40% towards future prospects for self-employed persons under age 40.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) for awarding compensation under conventional heads like loss of consortium.

The High Court found that the accident occurred at a tri-junction where both drivers owed a high duty of care.

The Court noted that while a charge-sheet was filed against Mansai, the evidence showed both vehicles were capable of speed and the force of impact caused severe injuries to both parties, indicating mutual negligence.

Consequently, the Court modified the Tribunal’s 75:25 split, holding both parties equally liable (50% each).

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹4,500/- per month too low, revising it to ₹5,787/- based on prevailing minimum wages.

The Court also corrected the omission of "future prospects" by adding 40% to the income and adjusted conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate/consortium) to ₹1,90,000/-.

It held that the deceased was liable for 50% contributory negligence (reducing the 75% finding).

The total gross compensation was recalculated at ₹13,56,670/-; after deducting 50% for the deceased’s negligence, the net payable amount was determined to be ₹6,78,335/-.

The Court ordered Mansai Rajwade (Non-Applicant No. 1) to pay the enhanced/additional sum of ₹4,71,785/- over and above the Tribunal’s award.