The absence of evidence for contributory negligence invalidates deductions from compensation; minimum wage guidelines provide the basis for income assessment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 14 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 1394 of 2024 PANNALAL Versus DEEPAK AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

ORDER The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated

29.09.2023 passed in MACC No.219/2020 challenging the adequacy of the compensation.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 07.08.2020 at about 05.30 p.m., the appellant was going by his motorcycle from Baaridaaylab Baanswada via Lio Chouraha to Jaipur highways road. When he reached near Pavan Putra hotel vehicle-Car No.MP14-CB-3038 came which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the motorcycle of the appellant from behind and dragged him upto 20 meters because of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body. F.I.R. was registered under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC at crime No.253/2020 at police station-Baanswada, Rajsthan for the accident.

3. The appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA Vehicles Act for compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident and the claims tribunal after assessing the permanent disability of the appellant at 80% with respect to whole body granted compensation of Rs.1,07,520/- and for loss of earning capacity and granting further amount for medical expenses in other heads total compensation of Rs.3,15,347/- was awarded but 20% amount was deducted for contributory negligence by observing that the appellant was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, thus, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,52,278/- was awarded to the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims tribunal while considering the income of the appellant has wrongly disbelieved the claim of the appellant that he was doing business of selling goods of various descriptions thereby earning Rs.500/- per day, thus, his income was Rs.15000/- per month. There was no occasion for disbelieving the same but, the claims tribunal has treated him as unskilled labourer and fixed the income on notional basis at Rs.5000/- per month which is not correct. He further submits that even otherwise minimum wages for unskilled labourer at the relevant time i.e. 07.08.2020 were Rs.8275/- per month but the claims tribunal without placing reliance on any circular or guidelines arbitrarily assessed the income at Rs.5000/-.

5. With respect to deduction of 20% for not wearing helmet, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this ground cannot be taken for deducting 20% for contributory negligence of the appellant. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA Supreme Court in the case of Anjana Narayan Kamble and others Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others , Civil Appeal No.5113 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19312 of 2021). Thus, he prays for enhancement of the compensation for setting aside the part whereby the contributory negligence was attributed to the appellant for not wearing helmet.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the claims tribunal has rightly deducted the amount of compensation at 20%. If the appellant would have been careful and wearing helmet at the time of accident, then some injuries could have been avoided. As regards the income, he submits that except a bald claim by the appellant regarding income no cogent evidence has been brought on record by him so as to demonstrate his income. The claims tribunal was correct in disbelieving the same and assessing the