Insurers cannot deduct compensation for contributory negligence if the policy covers paid drivers under IMT 28.

On 05.11.2014, Shambhubhai Fatabhai Talar (deceased) was driving a truck on the Ahmedabad-Vadodara Express Highway when he collided with a luxury bus.

The Tribunal found that the bus driver had parked on a side track to change a punctured tyre and was merging back into the main track when the truck struck it from behind.

The Tribunal held the truck driver (deceased) and the bus driver equally (50-50%) negligent.

It awarded Rs. 15,37,580/- (50% of the total assessed compensation of Rs. 30,75,160/-), deducting for the deceased’s "self-negligence".

The Insurance Company appealed against the 50% liability, while the claimants filed cross-objections challenging the 50% deduction for the negligence of the deceased, who was a paid driver.

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in apportioning 50% contributory negligence to each vehicle driver based on the evidence of the scene and the movement of the vehicles.

2. Whether the compensation should be reduced by 50% for the "self-negligence" of the deceased driver when the insurance policy for the truck included a premium for a "paid driver" under IMT 28.

The court applied the principle that negligence in claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is proved on the "touchstone of preponderance of probability".

It relied on *Bimla Devi v. H.R.S.T.C.* and *Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand* regarding the standard of proof.

Crucially, the court applied the Larger Bench decision in *Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakor v. Kandla Dock Labour Board* [2022 (1) GLR 440], which established that if an additional premium (IMT 28) is paid for a driver, the insurance company cannot be absolved of liability nor can compensation be slashed due to the driver's own negligence.

The Court upheld the 50-50% negligence split, noting that the bus driver was negligent in merging into the main track without ensuring the way was clear, while the truck driver failed to apply brakes timely to avoid the bus.

Regarding quantum, the Court affirmed the deceased’s income at Rs. 20,500/- based on employer testimony (*Chandra @ Chanda v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav*) and the application of *Sarla Verma* and *Pranay Sethi* for future prospects and deductions.

However, the Court found the Tribunal erred in law by deducting 50% of the award.

Since the truck's insurance was a "package policy" with a specific premium paid for the "paid driver," the contract of insurance indemnifies the owner for the driver's liability regardless of the driver's own negligence.

Thus, the "self-negligence" deduction was impermissible under the *Valiben* precedent.

It held that while the negligence split remains 50-50%, the claimants are entitled to the *full* compensation of Rs. 30,75,160/-.

The insurers of both vehicles are held jointly and severally liable; the truck's insurer (Respondent No. 8) is specifically liable to satisfy the 50% share attributed to the deceased driver due to the paid-driver coverage in the policy.

The original opponents were directed to deposit the full amount with 9% interest per annum.