Head-on collision warranted equal contributory negligence where both drivers’ rashness was established despite no eyewitnesses.

On 21 July 2018, deceased Vedram was driving Truck No. CG-04-JA-1450 from Bhanupratappur towards Antagarh.

Near Village Kirani S-Mod, the vehicle collided with Truck No. CG-19-BG-3736, driven by deceased Bhavesh Kunjam.

Both drivers sustained grievous injuries and died.

FIRs were registered by both sides, but since both drivers had died and no eyewitness was examined, the police submitted closure reports.

The claimants filed a motor accident claim seeking compensation of ₹57,60,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the total compensation at ₹15,89,000, but held both drivers 50% contributorily negligent and awarded ₹7,94,500 with interest at 9% per annum.

It also found a breach of the insurance policy conditions and directed the insurer to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

The claimants appealed against the finding of contributory negligence and the compensation awarded under conventional heads.

The insurer appealed against the assessment of income and the compensation awarded.

The appeals were filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Where a head-on collision occurs between two vehicles and the evidence supports negligence by both drivers, apportionment of liability may be sustained.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi prescribes the applicable addition for future prospects and standardized amounts under conventional heads.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation concerns deduction for personal and living expenses and the multiplier.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram concerns compensation under conventional heads.

The Court also accepted the Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction consequent upon breach of the policy conditions by the offending vehicle’s driver.

The Court found that the accident involved a head-on collision between two trucks, both of which were being driven by deceased persons.

FIRs had been lodged by both sides, neither party produced an eyewitness, and the police had submitted closure reports because both drivers had died.

On these facts, the Tribunal’s finding that both drivers were negligent and that each bore 50% responsibility was held to be proper and was not disturbed.

The insurer’s challenge to the deceased’s income also failed: Vedram was a skilled driver, and the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum wage for a skilled worker on the date of the accident was ₹9,530 per month; therefore, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹10,000 per month was not excessive.

However, the Court held that the Tribunal had awarded only ₹77,000 under conventional heads, whereas ₹1,10,000 was appropriate under Pranay Sethi and the related precedents.

Accordingly, the total compensation was recalculated from ₹15,89,000 to ₹16,22,000, and after applying 50% contributory negligence, the payable compensation increased from ₹7,94,500 to ₹8,11,000.

The compensation was enhanced from ₹7,94,500 to ₹8,11,000, granting the claimants an additional ₹16,500.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award, including the pay-and-recover direction, were left undisturbed.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced award to the claimants in Hindi, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.