High Court’s assessment of contributory negligence at 25% on the deceased was set aside. Tribunal’s finding of 100% negligence on the part of the bus driver reinstated. Monthly income of the deceased confirmed at Rs.62,725/- per month based on documentary evidence. Total compensation recalculated at Rs.1,20,84,925/-.

Applied principles from Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjunjamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166 and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 339, establishing that contributory negligence must be proven with direct or corroborative evidence. Reaffirmed Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468 on preponderance of probability as the standard of proof in motor accident claims.

Acts and Sections:

• Constitution of India (COI)

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Section on Compensation Calculation

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Principle of Preponderance of Probability

Subjects: Compensation, Contributory Negligence, Rash Driving, Quantum of Just Compensation, Standard of Proof, Tribunal’s Findings

Nature of the Litigation: Appeal against the High Court’s Order modifying compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT)

Remedy Sought: Enhancement of compensation and correction of contributory negligence finding

Reason for Filing the Case: Alleged wrongful assessment of contributory negligence and underestimation of the deceased’s income

Previous Decisions:

• Tribunal held 100% negligence on the part of the bus driver and awarded Rs.75,97,060/- with 9% interest per annum.

• High Court altered this, attributing 25% negligence to the deceased and recalculated income at Rs.50,000/- per month, awarding Rs.77,50,000/- at 6% interest per annum.

Issues:

• Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in the accident.

• Correct assessment of the deceased’s monthly income for compensation calculation.

Submissions/Arguments:

a) Appellants argued the deceased’s income was proven at Rs.70,000/- per month via bank statements and pay slips. b) Respondents contended there was no rashness on the bus driver’s part and claimed the awarded interest was excessive.