Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Isshaq and Others – Appellants
Versus
Kulvindar Singh and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 1550 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2025
For the Appellants : Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, Virendra Kumar Gupta
For the Respondent: Ramesh Singh
In motor accident claims, contributory negligence cannot be established solely through criminal case site plans; it requires direct evidence. Furthermore, claims must be determined by the preponderance of probability, and compensation must account for future prospects, correct multipliers, and minimum wage standards when specific income proof is unavailable.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A - Road accident resulting in death - Assessment of compensation - Tribunal finding of contributory negligence based solely on site plan in criminal record held perverse. Determination of claim petition based on preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. Absence of direct or corroborative evidence precludes assumption of contributory negligence. (Paras 5-8, 12-13)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of - Future prospects - Multiplier - Deceased aged below forty years entitled to compensation on future prospects at fifty percent of income and application of multiplier of eighteen. (Paras 17, 22)
(C) Evidence - Minimum wages - In absence of documentation regarding income, minimum wage rates for skilled workmen prevailing at time of accident constitute guiding factor for assessing compensation. (Paras 14-16)
Facts of the case:
Appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal for a death resulting from a road accident. The tribunal had found fifty percent contributory negligence on the part of the deceased based on a site plan and awarded a lower compensation amount. Appellants challenged the finding of contributory negligence and the inadequacy of the computation regarding income, future prospects, and the multiplier applied.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's reliance on the site plan to fix contributory negligence was erroneous and amounted to a perverse finding. Evidence established that the deceased was riding cautiously and the accident resulted from the sole negligence of the other vehicle. The deceased, being under forty, was entitled to future prospects and a higher multiplier, and compensation must be recalculated based on the minimum wage for skilled labor in the absence of salary documentation.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of contributory negligence through the reliance on criminal investigation site plans and the correct calculation of compensation including future prospects, income, and the appropriate multiplier.
Ratio Decidendi: In summary proceedings for accident claims, findings of contributory negligence cannot be made on the basis of site plans or criminal records without direct evidence, as claims are decided on the preponderance of probability. Statutory mandates regarding future prospects and multipliers for specific age groups must be strictly followed to ensure just compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed. Compensation enhanced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of claim, evidence presented, and opposing contentions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. assessment of negligence based on preponderance of probability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. determining deceased's monthly income using minimum wage standards. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. computation of compensation, multipliers, and final award adjustments. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.03.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Rampur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 143 of 2011 ( Isshaq and others v. Kulvindar Singh and others ), whereby for the untimely death of Asgar Ali in a road accident which occurred on 22.04.2011, a compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimants which has been ordered to be indemnified by the Insurer of the offending motor vehicle no. UP-22-M-7398.
2. Shri Abhishek Tripathi, learned Advocate, holding brief of Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that at the time of the accident, Asgar Ali was driving his motorcycle No. UP-22-H- 4499 in a cautious manner at a slow speed on the left side of the road, and the offending motorcycle No. UP-22-M-7398 came towards the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle of Asgar Ali, causing grievous injuries to Asgar Ali, who died subsequently. Learned counsel submitted that in the accident, there was no contributory negligence of the deceased, but still, on the basis of the site plan and FIR, the tribunal concluded that there was 50% contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident, which is a perverse finding. It was further submitted that the deceased was about 20 years old at the time of the accident and was a welder by occupation, who was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, who was a skilled workman, but the tribunal assessed the compensation by taking his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- only, which is grossly inadequate. He further submitted that the tribunal did not award any amount of compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 14 for assessing the compensation, whereas a multiplier of 18 should have been applied, and further, awarded less compensation towards non-pecuniary heads and also awarded less interest on the compensation. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that no documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased was submitted by the claimants before the tribunal, hence, the tribunal has awarded right amount of compensation to the claimants. It was further submitted that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, which was proved from the site plan prepared in the criminal case. As such, the tribunal has rightly concluded that the deceased contributed 50% towards the accident, which is not a perverse finding. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the impugned judgement and the lower court record.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, has held as under:-
"4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver." (Emphasis supplied)
