Unlicensed driving by the deceased does not defeat compensation absent proven contributory negligence.

On 12 December 2026, the deceased was riding his sister’s Scooty, accompanied by a pillion rider, near Shanghashree Club at Bhaduri Nayakhali Para, when a Bolero car allegedly driven at excessive speed from the opposite direction lost control and collided with the Scooty. The deceased and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and were declared dead at Nadia District Hospital, Krishnanagar. The accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the Bolero driver

The claimants instituted MAC Case No. 166 of 2017 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia. The vehicle owners did not contest the proceeding, whereas the Oriental Insurance Company contested it by filing a written statement. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,77,000 each to the two claimants, with interest at 6% per annum and a higher rate of 9% per annum in case of default, subject to certain directions concerning the COVID-19 period

The Insurance Company challenged the award on the grounds that the deceased was 17 years old, was driving without a licence, and had contributed to the accident. The claimants filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement on the basis of higher income, future prospects, and consortium

1. Whether the deceased’s alleged absence of a driving licence disentitled the claimants from receiving compensation or established contributory negligence on his part?

2. Whether the Insurance Company proved contributory negligence by the deceased sufficient to reduce or deny compensation?

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement on account of the deceased’s income, future prospects, loss of dependency, consortium, and other conventional heads?

4. What would be the appropriate rate of interest and consequential directions for payment of compensation?

The Court applied the principle that driving without a licence may expose the driver to prosecution or constitute a statutory violation, but it does not, by itself, disentitle the driver or his family from compensation where death or injury results from the rash and negligent driving of another vehicle

A plea of contributory negligence must be established by evidence; the insurer cannot avoid or reduce liability merely by alleging that the deceased lacked a licence

For computation of compensation, the Court considered the deceased’s probable monthly income, addition for future prospects, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses, application of the multiplier of 18, and amounts under consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses

The Court ultimately directed payment with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s licence-based defence because the absence of a driving licence was not proved to have caused or contributed to the accident. The insurer also failed to adduce evidence establishing contributory negligence by the deceased; accordingly, the deceased’s alleged violation could not defeat the claim arising from the Bolero driver’s rash and negligent conduct

On quantum, the Court accepted that the deceased had an earning capacity but reduced the claimed monthly income of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 4,000 because the employer was not examined and the deceased was young

It added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18. The Court further awarded amounts for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, and considered Rs. 6,50,000 to be just and reasonable compensation

It consequently modified the Tribunal’s award and removed the earlier direction imposing 9% interest in case of default

The Tribunal’s award dated 24 April 2024 was modified, and the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 6,50,000, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case until payment

The Oriental Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount with accrued interest before the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks of communication of the order, after giving credit for any amount already deposited pursuant to the Tribunal’s award. The claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount upon completion of the necessary formalities, subject to payment of deficit court fees