Failure to examine the available truck driver precludes attributing contributory negligence to the deceased.

On 11 July 2007, a Mahindra Bolero driven by the deceased was involved in an accident with a truck.

The truck was insured, and the insurer’s liability to satisfy the compensation was undisputed.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹25,000, awarded total compensation of ₹21,10,000, and held that the deceased had contributed 20% to the accident, thereby reducing the award to ₹16,88,000 payable to his widow and son.

In appeal, the claimants contended that the deceased’s income was higher, relying on Form No. 16 showing annual earnings of ₹4,00,000, and argued that contributory negligence could not be attributed to the deceased because the available truck driver had not been examined.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s income for computing loss of dependency, and whether future prospects were required to be added.

Whether the finding that the deceased was 20% negligent was sustainable when the truck driver, though available, had not been examined by the insurer.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation, including amounts under loss of future income, consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court applied the principles governing computation of compensation in motor accident claims, including assessment of actual income, deduction of income tax, addition of future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and application of the appropriate multiplier.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, the Court held that future prospects must be added where the deceased had a permanent job and, for a person aged 55 years, the applicable addition was 10%.

The Court also applied the multiplier method and adopted a multiplier of 9 for the deceased’s age of 55 years.

For conventional heads, it relied on Pranay Sethi, read with Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, to award consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court further applied the principle that a finding of contributory negligence must be supported by evidence and cannot be sustained merely on an unsupported allegation.

The Court accepted the evidence showing that the deceased had earned approximately ₹4,00,000 annually, both through his earlier employment and subsequent contractual work with the same firm.

After deducting ₹40,000 paid as income tax, it determined the annual income at ₹3,60,000, equivalent to ₹30,000 per month.

Since the deceased was stated to have been in permanent employment and was aged 55 years, the Court added 10% towards future prospects, increasing the monthly income to ₹33,000.

After deducting one-third for personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the dependants was fixed at ₹22,000.

Applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of future income was calculated at ₹23,76,000.

On negligence, the Court held that the insurer had failed to examine the truck driver, who was available, and had produced no sufficient evidence establishing that the deceased contributed 20% to the accident.

The finding of contributory negligence was therefore set aside and the truck driver was held solely responsible.

The Court additionally awarded ₹1,04,000 towards consortium, ₹19,500 towards loss of estate and ₹19,500 towards funeral expenses.

The Tribunal’s finding of 20% contributory negligence against the deceased was set aside, and the truck driver was held solely responsible for the accident.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹16,88,000 to ₹25,19,000, resulting in an enhancement of ₹8,31,000.

The award carried interest at 9% per annum, which was affirmed.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. was directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within eight weeks from receipt of the judgment.