Rear-end collision by heavy vehicle establishes sole negligence, exonerating the vehicle hit from behind.

On November 4, 2001, the claimant was riding a Scooty at a moderate speed near IFFCO Colony when an ST Bus, driven rashly and at excessive speed, struck the Scooty from behind

The claimant sustained multiple fractures (femur, tibia, and fibula) resulting in permanent disability

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 4,10,000/- as compensation with 9% interest, but attributed 20% contributory negligence to the claimant and 80% to the bus driver

The Insurance Company (Scooty), ST Corporation, and the claimant all filed appeals/objections challenging the issues of negligence and quantum

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the Scooty rider when the bus hit the vehicle from behind

2. Whether the assessment of the claimant's income, functional disability, and the application of the multiplier were legally sound

3. Whether the Insurance Company of the Scooty is liable to satisfy the award

The Court applied the principles of negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically relying on Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2018) 6 SCC 765], which addresses liability in rear-end collisions

Regarding quantum, the Court followed the mandate of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] for adding 10% toward future prospects for a 50-year-old victim

It also assessed income based on the evidentiary standards for salaried employees as discussed in Chandra @ Chanda v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav [(2022) 1 SCC 198]

The Court found the Tribunal’s finding of 20% contributory negligence unsustainable because the FIR (Exh. 40), Panchnama (Exh. 41), and subsequent charge-sheet (Exh. 42) clearly established that the ST Bus hit the Scooty from behind; furthermore, the bus driver failed to testify to rebut these facts

Regarding quantum, while the claimant failed to prove a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, the testimony of the employer (Exh. 38) and salary certificate (Exh. 54) supported a sum of Rs. 7,000/-

The Court corrected the Tribunal's omission of "future prospects" by adding 10% to the income based on the claimant's age (50 years) and maintained the 30% functional disability based on medical testimony from Dr. Patel (Exh. 55)

Enhancements were also made for non-pecuniary heads like "Pain, Shock and Suffering" and "Special Diet" due to the gravity of the injuries

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 4,10,000/- to Rs. 4,79,360/- with 9% interest

The Insurance Company and owner of the Scooty were exonerated from all liability

The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) was ordered to deposit the additional amount within six weeks and reimburse any amounts previously paid by the Insurance Company