In motor accident claims, a charge-sheeted truck driver’s non-examination justifies setting aside contributory negligence.

The deceased, Vashrambhai Ramabhai Chaudhary, died in a motor-vehicle accident on 4 December 2016 involving his two-wheeler and a truck.

The truck’s insurer’s liability to satisfy the compensation was not disputed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹3,000, attributed 10% contributory negligence to him, and awarded compensation of ₹6,48,000.

The claimants—his mother, widow, and minor daughter—appealed, contending that the deceased’s agricultural income had been undervalued and that no negligence should have been attributed to him. Documentary evidence regarding landholding and sale of agricultural produce had been produced before the Tribunal.

Whether the deceased was guilty of 10% contributory negligence in the accident involving his two-wheeler and the truck.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹3,000 for the purpose of computing loss of dependency.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation by applying future prospects, the appropriate multiplier, and compensation under the conventional heads.

Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are determined on the basis of a fair assessment of negligence and just compensation.

The filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle is relevant evidence supporting attribution of negligence to that driver, particularly where the driver is not examined.

For computing loss of dependency, the Court may assess income from documentary evidence, including agricultural landholding and sale proceeds of agricultural produce.

In accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects are added to the established income, and eligible dependants are awarded compensation for loss of consortium.

The deceased’s age determines the applicable multiplier; here, the multiplier for a 28-year-old deceased was 17.

The Court held that the charge-sheet had been filed against the truck driver and that the driver had not entered the witness box.

Considering the relative nature of the vehicles involved—a truck and a two-wheeler—the Court found no basis for attributing 10% negligence to the deceased and set aside the finding of contributory negligence.

On income, the Court relied on the documentary evidence showing the deceased’s landholding and the sale of agricultural produce, and enhanced the monthly income from ₹3,000 to ₹5,000, or ₹60,000 annually.

It then added 40% towards future prospects, deducted one-third towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier of 17, resulting in a loss of dependency of ₹9,52,000.

Since the deceased left behind three eligible dependants, consortium was awarded to each of them in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

The Court held that the truck driver alone was responsible for the accident and that no contributory negligence could be attributed to the deceased.

The total compensation was reassessed as follows: ₹9,52,000 for loss of dependency, ₹1,45,200 for loss of consortium, ₹18,150 for loss of estate, and ₹18,150 towards funeral expenses, totalling ₹11,33,500.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹6,48,000, the claimants were granted enhanced compensation of ₹4,85,500.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within ten weeks, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.