Non-wearing of a helmet alone does not establish contributory negligence without a causal nexus.

On 13 July 2021, Mohanbhai Hirabhi Marvadi was riding his motorcycle on the correct side of the road when an ST bus, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck the rear of his motorcycle, which then collided with another motorcycle travelling ahead. Mohanbhai sustained fatal injuries and died.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹14,25,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum against opponent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, while exonerating the insurer and another opponent.

GSRTC challenged the finding of negligence and quantum in First Appeal No. 3267 of 2025; the claimants sought enhancement in First Appeal No. 3120 of 2025.

The Tribunal had relied on the FIR, panchnama, charge-sheet against the ST bus driver, and the departmental finding against him.

1. Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent because he allegedly attempted to overtake the ST bus, was not wearing a helmet, or did not possess a valid driving licence?

2. Whether the ST bus driver was solely negligent and GSRTC was liable for the accident?

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was required to be enhanced by correctly assessing the deceased’s income and conventional heads of damages?

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governed the appeals.

In motor accident claim proceedings, negligence is determined on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, and police records including the FIR and charge-sheet constitute valid prima facie evidence of rash and negligent driving, as held in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, (2025) 2 SCC 599.

The Court also applied the principles stated in Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 INSC 889: a charge-sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence; criminal acquittal does not displace civil liability; and post-impact vehicle positions cannot, by themselves, establish contributory negligence against a smaller vehicle.

Mere non-wearing of a helmet does not constitute contributory negligence unless a causal connection is proved between that breach and the accident or the resulting injury.

For quantum, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects and conventional damages, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, concerning compensation for each eligible dependant under the head of loss of consortium.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the ST bus driver’s negligence was supported by the complaint, panchnama, damage to the ST bus, the charge-sheet, and the driver’s admission that departmental proceedings had resulted in punishment.

The driver’s contrary testimony was not accepted as conclusive because he was an interested witness.

The allegation that the deceased had overtaken the bus was unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Likewise, the absence of a helmet could not automatically establish contributory negligence because there was no proof that it caused the accident or materially contributed to the fatal injuries; the principal cause was the bus striking the motorcycle from behind.

The Court therefore upheld the finding of sole negligence against the ST bus driver.

On quantum, it held that the Tribunal had undervalued the deceased’s monthly income and had not correctly applied the principles governing future dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.

Recalculation resulted in compensation of ₹17,76,660.

First Appeal No. 3120 of 2025 filed by the claimants was partly allowed.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹14,25,000 to ₹17,76,660, resulting in an additional award of ₹3,51,660 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

GSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, after due verification and deduction of court fees, and the remaining directions of the Tribunal were continued.