Equal negligence apportionment is upheld where injured-witness testimony supports both drivers’ contribution.

On 2 January 2008, a lorry driven by the claimant and a Mahindra van collided head-on. The claimant sustained multiple injuries and sought compensation of ₹6,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹6,95,445, finding both vehicles equally negligent. The New India Assurance Company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the apportionment of negligence; it did not contest the quantum of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% negligence to the lorry and 50% to the Mahindra van.

Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹6,95,445 in compensation was correct.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

In determining negligence in a motor-accident claim, a criminal court’s finding is not conclusive; the Tribunal must independently assess the evidence before it. The judgment cites no specific precedent for that principle and identifies no separate statutory rule governing the compensation calculation.

The appellant relied principally on the FIR and the criminal court’s judgment to argue that the van driver alone caused the accident. The Court held that those materials did not displace the Tribunal’s independent assessment: the injured claimant had testified about the accident, and the Tribunal found that both vehicles contributed to it.

In the absence of contra evidence or perversity in that finding, the Court declined to disturb the equal apportionment. As the appellant did not challenge the compensation amount, and the Court found it supported by the medical evidence, it also declined to interfere with quantum.

The appellant was directed to deposit its 50% share of the award, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, within six weeks if not already deposited. The claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount due under the Tribunal’s directions; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.