Unsubstantiated allegations of non-use of a helmet cannot establish contributory negligence in motor accident claims.

The claimants, parents of the deceased Ruban Rajasekar, filed a motor accident claim alleging that on 17 November 2020, while the deceased was riding motorcycle No. TN 22 CZ 2091 on the Bangalore–Chennai National Highway, car No. TN 23 CV 4806 was driven rashly and negligently and collided with the motorcycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on 18 November 2020.

The deceased was stated to be 29 years old and employed as a Professor of Aeronautics and Engineering at Hindustan University, earning approximately Rs.50,000 per month.

The insurer contended that the deceased contributed to the accident by riding without a helmet and without a valid driving licence. The claimants examined the deceased’s mother, an academic colleague, and an eyewitness, and produced Exs. P1–P56; the respondents led no oral or documentary evidence.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the car driver negligent and found the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable. It awarded Rs.48,30,700, including Rs.47,10,666 towards loss of income/dependency, after fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.35,000, applying multiplier 17, and deducting 50% towards personal expenses.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence by riding without a helmet and/or without a valid driving licence, warranting apportionment of negligence and reduction of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal correctly determined the deceased’s income, applied multiplier 17, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, and awarded Rs.47,10,666 towards loss of income/dependency.

Whether the total compensation of Rs.48,30,700 awarded by the Tribunal required interference in appeal.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act governing appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal.

On assessment of negligence, the party alleging contributory negligence bears the burden of substantiating it through acceptable evidence; a mere pleading or allegation is insufficient.

The Court relied on the police records, including the FIR and final report, as supporting the case against the offending car driver.

The Court relied on M. Nithya v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SUPREME (SC) 1508, in holding that where no issue regarding contributory negligence was framed and no evidence was adduced on the alleged breach, the appellate court could not sustain the insurer’s unsupported contention.

For quantification of compensation, the Court applied Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, including multiplier methodology and deduction of 50% of the income towards personal expenses of an unmarried deceased.

The Court also held that possession of a learner’s licence, in the circumstances proved, did not by itself establish that the deceased was disqualified from riding the motorcycle.

The Court upheld the finding that the car driver was negligent because the eyewitness, PW3, testified that the car was proceeding near the centre median and that the collision occurred due to the manner in which the car was driven; the FIR and final report also proceeded against the car driver.

The insurer did not adduce any witness or document to establish that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, lacked a valid licence, or otherwise contributed to the accident.

The allegation concerning the learner’s licence was rejected because the claimants’ case was that the deceased possessed an LLR, and the insurer did not establish that such possession made the deceased legally incapable of riding the vehicle.

The Court additionally noted that no contributory-negligence issue had been framed before the Tribunal, making it inappropriate to entertain the unsupported contention at the appellate stage.

On quantum, the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs.35,000 was supported by the salary slips and the evidence of PW2, a professor from the deceased’s university.

Since the deceased was 29 years old and unmarried, multiplier 17 and a 50% deduction for personal expenses were correctly applied under Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

The resulting compensation was therefore found just and reasonable.

It further held that the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income and applied the appropriate multiplier and deduction, resulting in a just compensation of Rs.48,30,700.

Accordingly, CMA No. 1976 of 2026 was dismissed, the award dated 28 July 2025 in MCOP No. 476 of 2022 was confirmed, and no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.