Plea of contributory negligence cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.

The Appellant insurance company challenged the award dated 08th August 2014 passed by the MACT, Saket Courts, which awarded Rs. 1,53,04,188/- to the legal representatives of Nikhil Mehta

The deceased, aged 39, died in a road accident on 22nd April 2011 while traveling in a car driven by Vishal Mehta that collided with a truck parked in the middle of the road

The Appellant contested the negligence (arguing composite/contributory negligence), the assessment of income based on Form 16, the deduction for personal expenses, and the rate of future prospects

1. Whether the deceased can be held liable for contributory or composite negligence as an occupant of the vehicle?

2. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the income based on Form 16 and applied the correct deduction for personal expenses and future prospects?

3. Whether the non-pecuniary heads of compensation require realignment in accordance with settled precedents?

The Court applied the principles of motor accident law regarding "composite negligence," noting that an occupant cannot be attributed contributory negligence

It relied on Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi regarding the calculation of future prospects for those with established income growth

It further applied the standards from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Pranay Sethi to standardize non-pecuniary damages (consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate)

The Court rejected the plea of contributory negligence, holding that the deceased was a mere occupant and that the Appellant failed to raise the specific plea of composite negligence or lead evidence before the Tribunal

On income assessment, the Court upheld the reliance on Form 16 as a valid benchmark despite it being filed post-death

It affirmed a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses because dependency is determined at the time of the accident when four dependents existed

Regarding future prospects, the Court found the 50% grant justified under the Pranay Sethi principle, as evidence showed the deceased’s salary grew significantly (from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 80,000) over eight years

Finally, the Court realigned the non-pecuniary awards: it struck down "loss of love and affection," adjusted funeral expenses and loss of estate to Rs. 15,000 each, and awarded Rs. 40,000 each to five claimants for "loss of consortium"

The Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 1,52,54,188/- to Rs. 1,51,49,188/- with 9% interest per annum and directed the Appellant to deposit the balance amount within six weeks for release to the claimants as a lump sum