Helmet non-use cannot be inferred from head injuries alone to establish contributory negligence.

The deceased, aged 37, died from injuries sustained when a goods carrier collided with his motorcycle on 12 October 2021.

His wife and two children sought compensation, alleging that he earned ₹45,000 per month from welding and milk-vending work.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹31,79,000, including ₹30,24,000 for loss of dependency, calculating his notional monthly income at ₹16,000.

The insurer appealed, disputing negligence, alleging the deceased was not wearing a helmet, and challenging the income assessment and total compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred by failing to deduct compensation for the deceased’s alleged contributory negligence in not wearing a helmet.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the deceased’s notional monthly income at ₹16,000.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

A deduction for contributory negligence requires cogent evidence establishing the alleged negligence and its contribution to the accident or injuries; the nature of head injuries alone does not prove that a motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet.

Where actual income is not proved by documentary evidence, a Tribunal may determine reasonable notional income by reference to relevant evidence, prevailing economic conditions, and applicable precedents.

The Court relied on Andal and others v. Avinav Kannan and others, which applied the approach in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and adjusted notional income for inflation.

The insurer produced no witness or documentary evidence to establish that the deceased was not wearing a helmet or that any such omission contributed to the accident or his injuries.

The post-mortem reference to head injuries was insufficient, by itself, to prove either proposition; the Court therefore declined to find contributory negligence.

Although the claimants had not documented the deceased’s actual earnings, the Tribunal had calculated notional income by applying the inflation-based approach in Andal to the income adopted in Syed Sadiq.

The insurer offered no contra-evidence showing that the resulting figure was excessive.

The Court found no basis to disturb the ₹16,000 monthly assessment.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹31,79,000; it made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.