The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of contributory negligence in motor vehicle accidents, emphasizing the failure to take reasonable care for personal safety and the foreseeability of harm.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.29,32,776/- has been awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.

2. On 25th August, 2012 at about 02:10 p.m., Naveen Kumar Singh was going on his motorcycle near Swatantra Bharati Karyalaya, Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt when an army truck bearing No.11C092076H (332) took a left turn towards Swatantra Bharati Karyalaya and hit the motorcycle which resulted in the death of Naveen Kumar Singh.

3. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his parents and two sisters, who filed the claim before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was working as LDC with Engineer Stores Depot of Indian Army at Delhi Cantt. and was earning Rs.18,355/- per month. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.18,355/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.39,64,680/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation was computed as Rs.41,89,680/-. The Claims Tribunal held the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 30% and deducted 30% from the aforesaid compensation to compute the net compensation as Rs.29,32,776/-.

4. The appellants have challenged the impugned award on the ground that the deceased was not contributory negligent and, therefore, the deduction on account of contributory negligence be set aside.

5. The appellants examined the eye witness Arun Singh as PW-2, who deposed that he was sitting on the pillion of the motorcycle being driven by the deceased at the time of the accident and the army vehicle was running ahead of the motorcycle in the middle of the road. The deceased was in search of the space with a view to overtake the army vehicle and got space on left side of the truck but in the meantime, the truck took a left turn and hit the motorcycle from the front wheel of co-driver side due to which the deceased came underneath the front wheel of the vehicle.

6. The respondents examined Sunil Yadav, driver of the truck, as RW-1, who deposed that he took left turn after giving left indicator but the motorcycle driven by the deceased tried to overtake the offending vehicle from the left side at a high speed through a narrow gap between the footpath and the main road and while doing so, the deceased collided his motorcycle with the left front wheel of the truck.

7. The Claims Tribunal held the deceased and the driver of the truck to be contributory negligent to the extent of 30% and 70% respectively on the ground that the deceased was overtaking the army truck on a single road from the left side and the overtaking from the left side was not permissible as per law.

8. The law with respect to the contributory negligence is well settled. Contributory negligence connotes a failure of the victim to take reasonable care for his own personal safety in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the accident, such that he is blameworthy to the extent that he contributed to his own injury. A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have objectively foreseen that his failure to act prudently could result in hurting himself and failed to take reasonable measures to guard against that foreseeable harm. Contributory negligence is a partial defence that reduces the quantum of damages payable to plaintiff if he fails to safeguard his own interest.

9. In Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, (2002) 6 SCC 455, the Supreme Court defined the principle of contributory negligence as under:-

“8…...The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may prop