The minor rider’s unsafe conduct warranted 15% contributory negligence, while the lorry driver bore 85% responsibility.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of A. N. Charan Kumar in a collision between his motorcycle and a lorry on 14 July 2019.

The deceased was 16 years old and was riding a 125 cc motorcycle; the claimants alleged that the lorry driver caused the accident by braking suddenly without warning.

The Tribunal relied, among other things, on the police charge sheet against the lorry driver, awarded ₹15,82,000 with interest at 7% per annum, and attributed the accident to the lorry driver.

The insurer appealed, disputing negligence and the assessment of compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing all actionable negligence to the lorry driver, or whether the deceased rider contributed to the accident.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation and interest required modification.

A claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is determined on the preponderance of probabilities, rather than by requiring proof of negligence beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment also considered the statutory requirements concerning driving authorisation and protective headgear under the Motor Vehicles Act, including Section 129, in assessing the deceased’s conduct.

For quantum, it referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Hemraj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 654, in upholding the Tribunal’s assessment.

The Tribunal had also relied on Bimla Devi v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, and Parameshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, concerning the standard of proof in motor accident claims.

The Court accepted that the lorry driver bore primary responsibility because he drove at high speed and braked suddenly without an adequate signal.

However, it also found that the deceased, who was 16, was riding a 125 cc motorcycle without a valid licence or protective headgear and had collided with the rear of the lorry, indicating a failure to maintain a safe distance.

On the circumstances, it assessed the deceased’s contributory negligence at 15% and the lorry driver’s negligence at 85%.

The Court otherwise upheld the Tribunal’s income, future-prospects, deduction, multiplier and conventional-head calculations, and found no reason to alter the 7% interest rate.

The insurer was directed to deposit the balance, after credit for any amount already deposited, within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The Tribunal’s directions on apportionment and bank deposits were left undisturbed.