Without evidence of contributory negligence, the truck driver alone was liable for the accident.

On 18 August 2003, a motorcycle and a truck collided, killing both the motorcycle’s rider and pillion-rider. Their respective dependants filed compensation claims. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found both the truck driver and motorcycle rider negligent, apportioned negligence equally, assessed each deceased person’s monthly income at ₹2,500, and awarded compensation in the two claim petitions. The claimants appealed, challenging the apportionment of negligence and the assessment of income and compensation.

The appeals concerned the claims arising from the deaths of the rider, aged 24½, and the pillion-rider, aged 27; both had been employed as Vidhya Sahayaks on fixed pay.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% of the accident’s negligence to the motorcycle rider, despite the charge-sheet having been filed against only the truck driver and the driver not being examined

2. Whether the deceased persons’ income for assessing compensation should have reflected the regular salary payable after completion of the fixed-pay period, rather than their existing fixed pay of ₹2,500 per month

3. Whether the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier and whether the compensation required reassessment in light of the deceased persons’ ages, dependants, and future prospects

The judgment cites no statute or precedent by name. It applies principles of motor-accident compensation assessment: negligence must be determined from the evidence; income may account for a sufficiently established progression from fixed pay to regular salary; future prospects may be included in the income assessment; and the dependency calculation must account for the appropriate multiplier and deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses.

Compensation may also include consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

The Court held that the charge-sheet against only the truck driver prima facie indicated his responsibility, and the insurer had not examined the available truck driver to support the allegation that the motorcycle rider contributed to the accident. It therefore rejected the Tribunal’s 50:50 apportionment and found the truck driver solely responsible.

On quantum, the Court considered regularization and payment of regular salary after five years to be sufficiently certain for both deceased Vidhya Sahayaks, who had already served approximately three and four years, respectively. It assessed monthly income at ₹6,860, added 50% for future prospects, and applied deductions of one-third for the rider and one-fourth for the pillion-rider. It used multipliers of 18 and 17, respectively, and recalculated compensation, including conventional heads.

Both appeals were disposed of on those terms, and the connected applications for additional evidence were also disposed of.