Neglience cannot be apportioned to a claimant after a specific finding remains that the defendant was solely negligent.

On June 4, 2012, the appellant was driving his vehicle when he was struck by an ST bus (Reg. No. GJ-18-Y-4746) driven at excessive speed and in a negligent manner

The appellant sustained grievous injuries, including abdominal injuries, liver hematoma, and was on ventilator support for 21 days

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajkot, in MACP No. 387/2013, awarded Rs. 5,07,150/- with 9% interest, but deducted 10% of the award for self-negligence despite finding the bus driver solely responsible under Issue No. 1

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 10% of the compensation for self-negligence despite holding the respondent solely negligent in its specific findings

2. Whether the income assessment and compensation under heads of future prospects, pain and suffering, and loss of income required enhancement

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation for motor accidents.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to calculate future prospects

Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) INSC 1202 to determine appropriate multipliers and income additions for claimants in the age bracket of 50-60 years

The High Court found the Tribunal's assessment of monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- to be low, given revenue records (Exh. 34) proving the appellant’s agricultural holdings and a certificate from his employer

The Court reassessed monthly income at Rs. 10,000/- and added 10% for future prospects as per Pranay Sethi

Regarding negligence, the Court noted a logical contradiction: the Tribunal explicitly found the bus driver "solely negligent" under Issue No. 1 but arbitrarily deducted 10% for self-negligence in later paragraphs

considering the 21-day ventilator support and nature of injuries, the Court found the awards for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" and "Special Diet" to be meager and enhanced them to reflect the actual gravity of the trauma

The Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the 10% deduction for negligence and enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 5,07,150/- to Rs. 7,84,880/-

The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 2,77,730/- with 9% interest. The Court directed the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation to deposit the additional amount within six weeks