The insurer must prove specific negligence; collision alone cannot establish contributory negligence.

On 9 December 2014, Sushev Kumar was travelling as an occupant in a car when a truck allegedly ran a red light at Tolstoy Marg and struck the car, dragging it approximately 15 metres.

The accident killed the car’s driver and injured its occupants. Kumar sustained 30% permanent visual disability, assessed as causing 30% functional disability.

The MACT awarded him ₹65,34,081 with 9% interest. The insurer appealed, alleging contributory negligence by the car’s driver and challenging the compensation assessment.

1. Whether the insurer established contributory negligence by the car’s driver so as to require impleading the car’s insurer or reduce the claimant’s compensation.

2. Whether the MACT’s assessment of the claimant’s income, and consequently the compensation award, was justified.

Contributory negligence requires evidence of an act or omission by the claimant, or conduct attributable to the claimant’s case, that amounts to a failure to take reasonable care and materially contributed to the loss; mere involvement in a collision does not establish it.

The burden rests on the party alleging contributory negligence, which must prove the relevant breach by cogent evidence. The Court relied on Usha Rajkhowa v. Paramount Industries, (2009) 14 SCC 71, applying the principles in Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, (2002) 6 SCC 455, and on UPSRTC v. Subhash & Anr., 2026:DHC:7203.

The judgment identifies no statutory provision as a basis for deciding the appeal.

The Court found no evidence that the car’s driver failed to take reasonable care or otherwise contributed to the accident. The claimant’s testimony described the truck striking the car after running the red light, and the insurer did not produce evidence establishing negligence by the car’s driver. The Court therefore rejected the contributory-negligence argument.

On quantum, it noted that the MACT had considered the claimant’s ₹50,000 gross monthly salary, the employment certificate and three months’ salary slips, the testimony of the employer’s director, and the claimant’s MCA qualification. The resulting monthly income assessment of ₹46,685 was held just and reasonable.

It dismissed the appeal, rendered any pending applications infructuous, and directed that the balance deposited amount and accrued interest continue to be released in accordance with the MACT’s scheme.

Any statutory deposit was to be refunded only if the deposit order had been complied with.