Unsignalled lorry parking warranted 75% negligence against its driver, with 25% contributory negligence attributed to the motorcyclist.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Tribunal’s award in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 407 of 2018.

He was injured when his motorcycle struck a lorry on 28 March 2018.

The Tribunal attributed 50% contributory negligence to him and awarded compensation under various heads, assessing his monthly income at Rs.9,000 in the absence of proof

The claimant challenged both the negligence apportionment and the amount of compensation

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the claimant, or whether the apportionment should be altered

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement, including reassessment of the claimant’s notional income and related heads of compensation

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In assessing liability, the Court considered the parties’ respective duties in the circumstances: a motorcyclist should maintain sufficient distance from a lorry, while a driver parking a lorry on a main road should give proper indication. Where both parties contribute to an accident, negligence may be apportioned between them

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the evidence of income, the claimant’s age and occupation, the period of treatment and resulting inability to work, and the evidence concerning medical expenses and other heads

No precedent was cited.

The evidence showed that the claimant’s motorcycle struck the lorry, which the driver admitted parking on the road; however, there was no acceptable evidence that the lorry had been parked with proper indications.

The Court also considered the claimant’s duty to maintain distance and the accident’s occurrence at night, when proper use of the motorcycle’s headlight could have helped avoid the collision. It therefore found that both parties contributed, but that the Tribunal’s equal apportionment was improper, fixing 25% negligence on the claimant and 75% on the lorry driver.

For compensation, the Court found Rs.9,000 per month inadequate for a 27-year-old claimant in 2018 and assessed notional monthly income at Rs.14,000. It allowed five months’ loss of earnings and increased the awards for extra nourishment and attendant charges, while leaving the other heads unchanged.

The second respondent was directed to deposit that amount, less any amount already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimant was permitted to withdraw upon applying to the Tribunal.