Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11420

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

[2026:RJ-JP:14433]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6529/2017

1. Smt. Pushpa W/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
2. Dinesh S/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
3. Geeta D/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
4. Pankaj S/o Late Shri Mahaveer,
5. Gopal S/o Shri Bajrang,
6. Smt. Mohani W/o Shri Gopal,
All R/o Village Taswariya, Tehsil - Kekri Distt. Ajmer
----Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Hemraj S/o Shri Rang Lal, R/o Village Indoli Tehsil- Malpura,
Distt. Tonk (Driver-cum-owner of the Jeep No.RJ-14-UA-2139)
2. National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional
Manager, Branch Office at Kachahari Road, Ajmer (Raj.),
having its Regional Office at LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle,
Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Insurer of the Jeep No. RJ-14-
UA-2139)
----Non-claimants-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for
Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma
Ms. Manorma Sharma with
Ms. Manju Chauhan

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

07/04/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Sharma, Jai Prakash Gupta
For the Respondents: Arvind Sharma, Manorma Sharma, Manju Chauhan

Mere violation of traffic laws, such as lacking a driver's license or carrying extra passengers, does not constitute contributory negligence absent proof of a causal link between the violation and the accident itself.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Contributory negligence - Driving without license or carrying more than one pillion rider does not per se establish contributory negligence - There must be a causal nexus between the violation and the occurrence of the accident - Tribunal’s finding of 20% contributory negligence set aside.

(B) Compensation - Assessment of income - Deceased working as a barber - Deceased should be treated as a skilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act - Future prospects - At age 45, addition of 25% towards future prospects is appropriate - Conventional heads - Entitlement to compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses reaffirmed.

Facts of the case:
Dependents of the deceased claimed compensation following a fatal road accident involving a jeep. The Tribunal awarded compensation but deducted 20% for contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased lacked a driving license and carried extra pillion riders. The claimants appealed the quantum of compensation.

Findings of Court:
The court held that mere violation of traffic rules, without evidence of rashness or a causal connection to the accident, does not warrant a finding of contributory negligence. It assessed the deceased’s income based on minimum wage rates for skilled workers and applied 25% future prospects for a 45-year-old worker.

Issues: Whether the deceased was liable for contributory negligence due to the lack of a valid driving license and carrying extra passengers; whether the income assessment and future prospects deduction were correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi: Violation of traffic regulations does not constitute contributory negligence unless it is established that such violation contributed to the accident or the severity of the injuries. Income of a deceased worker (like a barber) must be calculated based on skilled labour rates.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced by Rs. 3,94,321/-.

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants (for short ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, District - Ajmer (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 114/2010 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 21.04.2010, Mahaveer was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-01-13M-9230 alongwith his relatives Shanti Devi and Santosh Devi from Kekri to village Jhadali. At around 11:00 AM, a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ14-UA-2139 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, Mahaveer sustained injuries and subsequently died.

3. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,45,000/- on account of death of Mahaveer.

4. The respondent-Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as he was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and was also not in possession of a valid driving license.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed six issues and after evaluating the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,49,384/-, in favour of the claimants, along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing 20% contributory negligence of deceased merely on the ground that while driving the motorcycle, he was not having a valid driving license and three persons were sitting on the motorcycle at the time of accident. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohammed Siddique & Anr Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2020 (3) SCC 57 and Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors, reported in 2008 (12) SCC 436.

7.1 Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also committed error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker, as notified by the State Government. He has also submitted that as on the date of accident, the deceased was running a salon and was working as a Barber, which is considered to be a skilled job, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency ought to have been calculated on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker.

7.2 He has further contended that the compensation under the conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of funeral expenses and loss of estate should also be re-assessed, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the claimants and has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and fair, therefore, requires no interference by this Court. He has further submitted that since deceased was not having a valid driving license and more than two persons were sitting on the motorcycle, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11420

Mere violation of traffic laws, such as lacking a driver's license or carrying extra passengers, does not constitute contributory negligence absent proof of a causal link between the violation and the accident itself.

Cases Referred (4)