Gujarat HC Removes 75% Blame From Brain-Injured Two-Wheeler Rider, Holds Bus Driver Solely Liable And Raises Award To Rs 91.29 Lakh

On 6 August 2000, the claimant’s two-wheeler collided with a bus, causing a brain haemorrhage and lasting impairment.

The Tribunal attributed negligence in the ratio of 75:25 to the claimant and bus driver, assessed the claimant’s disability at 10%, and awarded compensation.

The bus insurer accepted the award; the claimant appealed, challenging both the finding of contributory negligence and the quantum.

The High Court considered evidence of the claimant’s continuing symptoms, inability to work, and eventual medical dismissal, alongside UK income records.

The Court relied on the principles governing assessment of negligence and compensation in motor-accident claims, including consideration of the evidence concerning the parties’ conduct and the claimant’s injury-related loss; it cited no specific statutory provision for these principles.

For future prospects, it applied National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, adding 25% to the claimant’s income.

It assessed future loss using the claimant’s age, disability, income, and a multiplier of 13.

The claimant’s account that the bus driver collided with his two-wheeler while overtaking another truck was unchallenged by the bus driver, who did not testify. The Court also considered the bus driver’s higher vantage point and concluded that the evidence did not support attributing negligence to the claimant.

On quantum, medical and employment records showed continuing balance, vestibular, hearing, speech, and memory problems, prolonged absence from work, and medical dismissal; the Court therefore assessed permanent disability at 50%, rather than 10%.

It retained the Tribunal’s income finding of £15,172, applied 25% future prospects, converted the resulting disability-adjusted income at the Tribunal’s exchange rate, and applied a multiplier of 13.

It also awarded compensation for actual loss of income and other heads.

It reassessed the compensation and allowed the appeal to that extent, directing the insurer to deposit an additional Rs. 87,16,326 with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim petition, within ten weeks; the amount was to be disbursed to the claimant after verification.

The judgment’s stated compensation figures contain apparent internal inconsistencies: the total and enhanced amount do not reconcile with each other or with the Tribunal award described earlier in the judgment.