Under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, can contributory negligence be presumed against a deceased rider on an allegation simpliciter that both vehicles were driven at high speed?
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Contributory negligence — Standard of proof — Assessment of income of the deceased — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Contributory negligence — Allegation simpliciter of high speed — Held: Contributory negligence cannot be presumed against the deceased on an allegation simpliciter that both vehicles were driven at high speed. In the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, a finding of 25% contributory negligence is erroneous. (¶10, 11) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation claims — Standard of proof applicable — Held further: Once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. The standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond all reasonable doubt. (¶13) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Just compensation — Last drawn salary as per pay slip — Held further: Where the Tribunal has recorded the last drawn salary of the deceased as per the Pay Slip, the High Court is not justified in assessing the monthly income at an amount which is relatively low. Compensation recalculated; appeals allowed. (¶14, 15)
Under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, can contributory negligence be presumed against a deceased rider on an allegation simpliciter that both vehicles were driven at high speed?
No. In the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. Where the Tribunal, on the Spot Mahazar and the oral evidence, found no sufficient evidence indicating negligent driving on the part of the deceased, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous.
In a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, what standard of proof does the Tribunal apply?
The standard of proof is preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases. Strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply, and while calculating the quantum of just compensation the Tribunal is not strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.
What did the Supreme Court finally decide on the contributory negligence and the compensation payable?
The Civil Appeals were allowed. The contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased was held erroneous and the view of the Tribunal on negligence was agreed with; the monthly income was affirmed at Rs.62,725/- as per the Pay Slip. Compensation was recalculated at Rs.1,20,84,925/- against Rs.77,50,000/- awarded by the High Court, with interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave Granted
The present appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 1st October 2020, passed in MFA No.2162 of 2018 C/W MFA No.4016 of 2018 by the High Court of Kar- nataka at Bengaluru, which in turn, was preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th December 2017 in M.V.C No. 3858/2016 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7).
The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 6th June 2016 the deceased, namely, Boobalan, aged 38 years, was travelling on his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala. The driver of the BMTC Bus (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. KA-01/F-9555 collided with the de- ceased, driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, re- sulting in his death on the spot due to the grievous injuries sus- tained.
The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, submitting therein that the deceased was the only earning member of the family, working as an Executive in the Housekeeping Department at Hotel Royal Orchid, Old Air- port Road, Bengaluru; and earning upto Rs.70,000/- per month.
The Tribunal, by its Order dated 12th December 2017, after considering the last drawn salary of the deceased as Rs.62,725/- per month, awarded the Appellants an amount of Rs.75,97,060/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the BMTC Bus.
Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, both parties filed an appeal before the High Court. The appellant challenged the same on the ground that the Tribunal incorrectly determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.62,725/- per month, whereas the proven income as per the bank statement (Ex. P.21) should be assessed at Rs.70,000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent challenged the assessment on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus; instead of considering the notional income wrongly considered the income to the tune of Rs.62,725/- as the deceased was not a permanent employee and the interest @ 9% was excessive.
The High Court, vide the impugned order dated 1st October 2020, allowed the appeal and determined the contributory negligence at 75% on the driver of the bus and 25% on the deceased by relying upon the statements and documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle as both were driving at high speed and further assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded an enhanced amount of Rs.77,50,000/- @ 6% interest per annum.
Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us. The significant point raised by the appellant is that the High Court wrongly assessed contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25%.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P.3 Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the ac- cident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the de- ceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.
Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kun- jujamma Mohan[^1], where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and Ors.[^2] In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.
Another point to be considered was that the claimants- appellants approached the High Court seeking an enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, stating therein that the deceased was earning Rs.70,000/- per month working as an Executive Housekeeper at Hotel Royal Orchid, whereas the High Court assessed the income as Rs.50,000/- per month.
It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC[^3] observed that:
“22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.” The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Ra- jjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.[^4], wherein it was observed that :
“20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases”.
In our considered view, the High Court was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/-, as this amount is relatively low, particularly in the background of the fact that the accident occurred on 6th June, 2016 and the Tribunal has evidently recorded that the last drawn salary of the deceased as per Pay Slip (Ex.P.16) to be Rs.62,725/- per month. Therefore, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.62,725/- per month.
As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the claimant-appellant is recalculated as fol- lows: CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Compensation Amount In Accordance Heads Awarded with: 1. Monthly Rs.62,725/- Income National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay 2. Yearly Income Rs.7,52,700/- Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 3. Future 7,52,700 + Prospects 3,01,080 Para 42, 52 & (40%) (Age 59 being 38) = Rs.10,53,780/- 4. Deduction (1/4) 7,52,700 – 2,63,445 = Rs.7,90,335/- 5. Multiplier (13) 7,90,335 X 15 = Rs.1,18,55,025/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- 7. Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/- Expenses 8. Loss of 48,400 X 4 Consortium = Rs.1,93,600/- Total Rs.1,20,84,925/- Thus, the difference in compensation is as under : MACT High Court This Court Rs.75,97,060/- Rs.77,50,000/- Rs.1,20,84,925/-
The Civil Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated 12th December, 2017 in M.V.C.No. 3858/2016 passed by IX Additional Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7), as modified by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 1st October, 2020, passed in MFA No.2162 of 2018 C/W MFA No.4016 of 2018, stands modified accordingly. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL) ……………………………………J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) New Delhi; February 28, 2025.
Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was justified in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court?
2026 INSC 900 · Supreme Court of India
Can an advocate disclose a former client's confidential information to media after the relationship turns hostile?
2026 INSC 907 · Supreme Court of India
What distinguishes genuine public interest litigation from disguised misuse, per the Vaniyambadi Level Crossing case?
2026 INSC 903 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy