Truck driver held 100% negligent where rear-end impact caused the motorcycle to strike the road divider.

On 23 December 2001, Sangitaben and her husband, Mukeshbhai, were travelling on a motorcycle from Vadod to Ahmedabad when a truck bearing registration No. GJ-7-X-5003 allegedly hit the motorcycle from behind near Dabhan bus stand. The motorcycle climbed onto the road divider, causing both occupants to be thrown onto the road; Mukeshbhai subsequently died and Sangitaben sustained injuries

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed MACP Nos. 534 and 535 of 2002. In the fatal-accident claim, it assessed compensation at ₹18,37,352 but attributed 60% negligence to the motorcycle driver and awarded ₹7,35,000. In the injury claim, it assessed compensation at ₹81,650, deducted 60% for contributory negligence, and awarded ₹32,700

The claimants filed First Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 of 2011 seeking enhancement and reversal of the finding of contributory negligence. The Insurance Company filed First Appeals Nos. 29 and 30 of 2011 challenging the Tribunal’s award and the involvement of the truck

1. Whether the truck was involved in the accident and whether its driver was negligent in causing the collision?

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 60% contributory negligence to the deceased motorcycle driver?

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to reassessment and enhancement of compensation under the applicable principles governing loss of dependency, future prospects and conventional heads?

4. Whether the Insurance Company’s appeals challenging the Tribunal’s award were maintainable on the facts and evidence?

The Court applied the principles governing adjudication of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, including proof of involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving, contributory negligence, and the liability of the driver, owner and insurer.

Physical damage to the vehicle, scene-of-accident evidence, eyewitness testimony and admissions of the driver may be relied upon cumulatively to establish negligence

The Court further relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for adding future prospects to the income of a permanently employed deceased and for determining standardized compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses

Where the evidence establishes that the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident, no deduction can be made towards contributory negligence, and the driver, owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s contention that the motorcycle had independently lost control and that the truck was falsely implicated.

The complaint at Exhibit 28, read with the panchnama at Exhibit 29, showed inward compression on the motorcycle’s rear carrier and ten-foot drag marks, indicating a rear-end impact by the truck

This conclusion was corroborated by the independent eyewitness, who stated that he saw the truck hit the motorcycle from behind and that the motorcycle did not independently climb the divider

The truck driver’s statements at Exhibits 75, 76 and 101 also admitted the collision and his departure from the spot

Since the primary cause was the truck’s failure to maintain a safe distance and its negligent collision with a light vehicle from behind, the Tribunal’s finding attributing 60% negligence to the motorcycle driver was held perverse and unsustainable; the truck driver was held 100% negligent

For the fatal claim, the Court treated the deceased’s age as 41–42 years, his monthly salary as ₹12,724, and added 30% towards future prospects. After deducting one-third for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 14, it calculated loss of dependency at ₹18,52,614

Applying Pranay Sethi, it awarded ₹96,800 for loss of consortium, ₹18,150 for loss of estate and ₹18,150 for funeral expenses, resulting in total compensation of ₹19,85,714

In the injury claim, the Court retained the Tribunal’s assessed compensation of ₹81,650 but removed the 60% deduction for contributory negligence

First Appeal Nos. 35 and 36 of 2011 filed by the claimants were allowed, while the Insurance Company’s First Appeal Nos. 29 and 30 of 2011 were disposed of accordingly

In MACP No. 535 of 2002, compensation was enhanced to ₹19,85,714, resulting in an enhancement of ₹12,50,714. In MACP No. 534 of 2002, compensation was enhanced to ₹81,650, resulting in an enhancement of ₹48,950

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the aggregate enhanced amount of ₹12,99,664 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petitions until realization, within four weeks

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount to the claimants after verification and compliance with applicable procedure, subject to deduction of court fees, if unpaid