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

On May 13, 2015, Rajuram (the deceased) was riding his motorcycle when a collision occurred with a TVS Moped driven by Mansai Rajwade (the Non-Applicant/Appellant).

Rajuram died at the spot, and Mansai sustained a leg fracture.

Neither vehicle was insured.

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

Mansai appealed challenging the 25% negligence attributed to him, while the claimants appealed seeking enhancement of compensation and a reversal of the contributory negligence finding.

1. Whether the assessment of 75% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was legally sustainable based on the evidence.

2. Whether the monthly income and compensation under conventional heads were correctly assessed by the Tribunal in light of settled precedents.

The Court applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Regarding the quantification of compensation, the Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) for the multiplier and deduction for personal expenses.

Regarding the quantification of compensation, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) for future prospects (40% for self-employed under 40 years) and conventional heads.

Regarding the quantification of compensation, the Court relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) for the awarding of parental and filial consortium.

The principle of "preponderance of probability" was applied to determine contributory negligence.

The Court observed that neither party could be held solely negligent.

The claimants' witness (AW-02) admitted that Mansai also suffered a serious fracture, indicating a high-impact collision near a tri-junction where both drivers owed a duty of care.

Mansai admitted to driving without a valid license.

Consequently, the Court found that the Tribunal's 75:25 split was erroneous and modified it to a 50:50 ratio of contributory negligence.

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹4,500/- per month too low; it revised the income to ₹5,787/- per month based on Chhattisgarh State Minimum Wages.

The Court also corrected the omission of future prospects (adding 40%) and revised the conventional heads to ₹1,90,000/- as per Pranay Sethi and Magma General guidelines.

The total gross compensation was re-calculated at ₹13,56,670/-.

After a 50% deduction for the deceased’s contributory negligence, the net payable amount was determined to be ₹6,78,335/-.

The Court ordered Mansai Rajwade to pay an additional/enhanced sum of ₹4,71,785/- (over the original award) with interest.

Both appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.