Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shambhu Kumar – Respondent
MAC.APP. 815/2025|CM APPL. 81463/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Awantika Manohar, Parul Dhurvey
For the Respondents: Nemo
The Tribunal must adjudicate the plea of contributory negligence when raised by the insurer, assessing the conduct of both parties to determine if liability should be apportioned, rather than assuming sole liability for the offending vehicle.
Headnote:The appellant challenged a motor accident compensation award, arguing that the tribunal failed to consider the plea of contributory negligence despite evidence suggesting the deceased was driving on the wrong side of the road. The appellant contended that the evidence of the eye-witness corroborated the driver's objection, warranting an apportionment of liability. The court directed payment of the awarded amount into the tribunal but granted a stay on enforcement pending the appeal. The critical issues are whether the tribunal erred in law by failing to adjudicate the issue of contributory negligence and whether the compensation should be apportioned between the parties. The court relies on established principles that when a plea of contributory negligence is raised, the tribunal is obligated to assess the conduct of both parties to determine if liability should be shared, rather than holding only one party solely responsible. The court ordered the appellant to deposit the full compensation with interest and stayed the execution of the award while issuing notice to the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the impugned award and factual circumstances regarding the accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding the failure to adjudicate the specific issue of contributory negligence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. procedural directions for notice, deposit of funds, and stay of execution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
O R D E R
08.01.2026
CM APPL. 81462/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 81464/2025 (Exemption from filing official translation)
1. Subject to filing the official translation within a period of four weeks, exemption is allowed.
2. Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 815/2025
1. This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company assailing impugned Judgment and Award dated 31st October 2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01 hereinafter, “Tribunal”), North District, Rohini Courts Delhi in MACT No.141/2024. By the said award, compensation of Rs.31,59,000/- (including interest till passing of award) along with future interest, was awarded against insurer holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle.
2. Parents of deceased/Subham are arrayed as respondent nos. 1 & 2. Respondent no.3 is the driver of offending vehicle and respondent no.4 is owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Ms. Avantika Manohar, counsel for appellant contends that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of eye-witness namely Nitesh Kumar under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who was the pillion rider, in the following terms:
“On 08.09.2023, at around 4:30 a.m., I asked Subham @Anmol to drop me home, so he took me on his motorcycle. When we reached Mukrawa Chowk, he took the motorcycle from the wrong sjde of the road towards the flyover. Just then a speeding truck was coming from the front. The truck driver tried to save us, but due to the high speed, he couldn’t, and our motorcycle collided with the rear of the truck, and we both fell onto the road along with the motorcycle. The truck driver got off the truck and ran away and I saw him. The ambulance; then took us both to BJRM Hospjtal. I wasn't in a condition to give a statement. My friend Anmol was seriously injured and was referred to LNJP Hospital. I went home with my mother after receiving treatment from the hospital that day. . . . . . . .. The Tata 709 driver, Amir Khan has caused the accident by driving the Tata 709 at high speed and carelessly. Legal action should be taken against the driver Amir Khan”
(emphasis added)
4. On this basis, she states that there was clearly some evidence before the Tribunal that deceased/Subham entered highway from the wrong side and, therefore, offending vehicle i.e. truck driver could not have avoided the collision. She further states that driver and owner in joint written statement took a preliminary objection that the accident occurred due to negligence on part of the deceased/Subham, who was driving the motorcycle on wrong side.
5. She contends that this issue was not taken into account while deciding issue no.1 by the Tribunal which ought to have been done, considering that contributory negligence forms a subset of the decision on rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. For this, she relies upon two decisions of Supreme Court in particular paragraph nos.6 & 7 of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 748 and paragraph 6 of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer & Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 731.
6. Relying on these decisions, she states that if the driver of offending vehicle had raised the issue regarding contributory negligence of deceased, the Tribunal ought to have gone into this assessment and possibly apportioned loss between driver and owner on one hand and deceased/testator on the other. This aspect was not gone into while determining Issue no.1 by the Tribunal, as is evident from paragraph 8 of impugned judgment and award.
7. Accordin
