Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to a claimant based on assumptions; it requires evidence of a specific act or omission that materially contributed to the accident.

ORDER

IA No. 7422 of 2025, an application filed under Order 41 Rule 14(4) of CPC on behalf of appellants seeking dispensation of service upon respondents No.1 and 2, is taken up.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is considered and allowed. Accordingly, service of notice upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby dispensed with.

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 08.12.2023 passed by the 10th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.883/2021, on the grounds of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement thereof, as well as being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal holding the deceased to be 50% contributorily negligent in the accident.

Brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2021 at about 8:15 p.m., Suresh Kumar Patel was proceeding slowly on his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-07/NL-9478 from Dabra to Gwalior, while Damodar Prasad was following him on another motorcycle. When they reached Bharatri Bridge within the jurisdiction of Police Station Antari, Non-claimant No.2, while driving a container bearing registration No. HR-55/AC-4176 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Dabra side and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, Suresh Kumar Patel fell on the road, sustained severe head injuries, and died on the spot. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle abandoned the container at the spot and fled away. The deceased was taken by ambulance to the mortuary of J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. On the report lodged by eyewitness Damodar Prasad, Crime No.132/2021 was registered at Police Station Antari. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle before the competent Court.

The claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Non-claimants No.1 and 3 filed their reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. Non-claimant No.2, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and was proceeded ex parte. The Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after recording evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.24,37,075/- in favour of the claimants and held that the deceased was 50% contributorily negligent in the alleged accident.

Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal contending that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to law, evidence on record, and settled principles governing motor accident compensation, and therefore deserves modification. It is contended that the finding of the Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased is wholly erroneous, as the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.2, who hit the deceased from behind. It is further submitted that no rebuttal evidence was produced by the respondents and neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle was examined. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the lower side despite accepting that he was serving as an Agriculture Development Officer and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.78,258/-. The determination of age as 61 years is also assailed on the ground that the deceased was 60 years old and, therefore, a higher multiplier ought to have been applied along with addition towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate and contrary to settled law. On these grounds, enhancement of compensation is sought, as well as dismissal of the finding of contributory negligence.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported