Physical evidence and adverse inference reduced the deceased driver’s contributory negligence to 10%.

Navinchandra Shah died after his Indigo car collided with truck No. RJ 09 GA 0205 while travelling from Modasa to Bayad.

His legal heirs claimed compensation of ₹20 lakh.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹9,68,400 with 9% annual interest, attributing 40% contributory negligence to the deceased and 60% to the truck driver.

The claimants appealed, challenging the negligence apportionment and the assessment of income and compensation.

The High Court considered the FIR, spot panchnama and other evidence, as well as the deceased’s income-tax returns.

Whether the Tribunal’s finding of 40% contributory negligence by the deceased should be modified in light of the evidence concerning the vehicles’ positions and the truck driver’s conduct.

Whether the Tribunal properly assessed the deceased’s income and the compensation payable, including future prospects and conventional heads of damages.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Negligence must be determined from the evidence as a whole, including contemporaneous police records, the scene panchnama and witness testimony; it should not be assigned on assumptions or conjecture.

The Court relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects and conventional heads including loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, concerning consortium for dependants.

The High Court considered that the Indigo was positioned on its correct side of the road, while the truck was in the middle or wrong lane and lacked functioning parking lights or warning displays.

The truck driver neither contested the claim nor entered the witness box.

On the Court’s assessment of the panchnama, FIR and other evidence, the Tribunal’s attribution of 40% negligence to the deceased was unsupported; the Court reassessed the apportionment as 10% to the deceased and 90% to the truck driver.

The Court also found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the income-tax returns at Exhibits 39–42 and awarded compensation under the relevant conventional heads.

It calculated total compensation at ₹23,01,596, deducted the prior award of ₹9,68,400, and then deducted 10% negligence from the difference, resulting in enhanced compensation of ₹11,99,876.

The negligence apportionment was modified to 10% for the Indigo driver and 90% for the truck driver.

The claimants were awarded enhanced compensation of ₹11,99,876 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount after verification and to deduct any unpaid court fees.