Negligence was apportioned 80:20 between the truck driver who parked without warning and the motorcycle rider.

On 20 September 2020, Ketan, riding a motorcycle, collided with a truck stationary on the road and died at the scene.

The claimants alleged that the truck had been left without warning signals or lights; the insurer disputed liability and contended that the motorcyclist’s negligence caused the accident.

The Tribunal awarded ₹25,45,438 and attributed liability to the respondents. The insurer appealed, challenging the apportionment of liability.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle of apportioning liability where the evidence establishes that the conduct of both parties contributed to the accident.

For conventional heads of compensation, it relied on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, applying a 10% increase to the amounts awarded for funeral expenses, loss of estate and filial consortium.

The Court considered the spot mahazar, sketch, vehicle inspection report and police papers. These showed that the truck was stationary on the road at night and that the truck driver had not taken adequate precautions, including providing a warning signal; the truck driver did not give evidence to establish otherwise.

The Court also noted that the motorcyclist had failed to heed the road-hump indication and concluded that his negligence contributed to the collision. It rejected the insurer’s contention that the motorcyclist should simply have moved to the right, given the two-way traffic.

It apportioned negligence at 80% to the truck driver and 20% to the motorcyclist.

The Court separately increased the conventional-head awards by 10%, while leaving the loss-of-dependency award undisturbed.

It held the respondents jointly and severally liable for 80% of that amount—₹20,41,950—with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization; the remaining 20% reflected the motorcyclist’s contributory negligence.