No contributory negligence was attributable to a pedestrian fatally struck by a rashly driven truck.

The deceased, Bhurubhai Chauhan, was struck and fatally injured by an Eicher truck while walking home from work near Vatva GIDC on 4 May 2013.

His legal representatives sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming that he was 45 years old and earned ₹30,000 per month.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹20,94,088 with 7.5% interest.

The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement, and the insurer appealed, alleging contributory negligence and challenging the future-income increase.

Whether the deceased, who was a pedestrian, was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income and future prospects for calculating dependency compensation.

Whether compensation under the non-pecuniary heads required enhancement.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claimant may recover compensation for death caused by a motor accident.

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, concerning future prospects and conventional heads of compensation, and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram @ Charu Ram & Ors., AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189, concerning compensation for consortium.

The Court held that, given the deceased’s age of 51 and the absence of a permanent source of income, a 10% increase for future prospects was appropriate.

The Court rejected contributory negligence because the deceased was walking on the road and the truck’s front wheel ran over him; the evidence supported the conclusion that the driver’s rash driving caused the fatal accident.

On income, the Court treated the employer’s salary slip as direct evidence and distinguished it from the income-tax return. It assessed monthly income at ₹31,641 and applied a 10% increase for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 11, resulting in dependency compensation of ₹30,62,928.

Applying the cited precedents, it also allowed ₹18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹96,800 for loss of consortium.

It calculated total compensation at ₹31,96,028 and awarded an additional ₹11,01,940, with 7.5% annual interest from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The defendants remained jointly and severally liable, and the insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount within eight weeks; both appeals were disposed of accordingly.