No Licence Alone Didn’t Prove Scooter Rider’s Fault; Delhi HC Cuts Her Compensation By ₹54,000 Over Unsupported Expenses

On 5 December 2022, Varsha Gupta, then aged 27, was riding a scooter with her daughter when a taxi driven by Vikash collided with it.

Gupta suffered fractures to her tibia and fibula, was hospitalized for five days, and underwent surgery.

The MACT awarded her ₹3,40,385 with interest at 8% per annum, holding the driver and vehicle owner jointly and severally liable.

Vikash appealed, challenging contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation, among other grounds.

The owner did not appeal, and the Court had previously stayed execution against the driver to the extent of 50% of the award.

The Court applied the principle that a victim’s violation of law does not, by itself, establish contributory negligence; a causal connection must be shown between the violation and the accident or the injury suffered.

It relied on Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kusum and Ors., 2026:DHC:6915.

The Court also required contributory negligence to be established by evidence and treated an undated, unproved expense bill unsupported by evidence of prescribed treatment as insufficient proof of the claimed expense.

No statutory provision was expressly applied in the judgment.

Gupta’s admission that she lacked a valid licence did not establish that the absence of a licence caused the collision or her injuries.

The driver did not testify before the MACT, and the site plan was too vague to establish that Gupta’s conduct caused or contributed to the accident; contributory negligence was therefore not proved.

The Court disallowed the ₹24,000 physiotherapy expense because the bill was undated and unsupported by evidence or a prescription.

Given the fractures, surgery, and five-day hospitalization, it reduced the awards for conveyance, special diet, and attendant charges from ₹35,000 to ₹25,000 each, as claimed by Gupta.

It upheld the loss-of-income assessment, based on graduate minimum wages and three months of incapacity, because the driver led no contrary evidence.

It reduced the compensation by ₹54,000, from ₹3,40,385 to ₹2,86,385, with interest at 8% per annum.

The appellant was directed to deposit the revised compensation, after accounting for the reduction, with accrued interest before the Registrar General; the amount was to be released to Gupta as a lump sum.

The appeal was disposed of.