Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Impact Was From Behind: P&H High Court Blames Solely Stationary Tractor For Fatal Night Crash

“Negligence Cannot Be Inferred From The Absence Of A Helmet — It Must Be Affirmatively Proved,” In a striking judgment Justice Sudeepti Sharma of the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) decision that had blamed a deceased motorcyclist equally for a fatal road accident. Holding that the tribunal’s finding of 50:50 contributory negligence was “perverse, presumptuous and unsustainable,” the Court ruled that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the tractor-trolley driver, who had left his vehicle unlit and improperly parked on a public road at dusk.

The Court strongly deprecated the MACT’s reliance on speculative reasoning, declaring, “Contributory negligence cannot rest on conjectures and requires affirmative proof of act or omission materially contributing to the accident.”

The ruling has far-reaching implications on how contributory negligence is to be assessed, particularly when the deceased is not alive to defend themselves.

“Parking A Tractor Without Lights On A Public Road In Darkness Is A Violation Of Statutory Duty And A Per Se Act Of Negligence”

The fatal accident occurred on the evening of December 6, 2015, when Shiv Shankar, an Assistant Lineman with UHBVNL and a retired Army man, was commuting to his duty on a motorcycle and collided with a stationary tractor-trolley on the road near village Bainsi. The vehicle had no lights, indicators or reflectors and had been abandoned in the middle of the road in complete darkness.

An eye-witness, Satbir Singh — the brother of the deceased — deposed that he was following Shiv Shankar on another motorcycle and saw the unlit tractor in the centre of the road. His evidence, found to be “consistent, cogent and unimpeachable,” went unshaken in cross-examination.

Justice Sharma observed that “there was nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was driving at excessive speed or violating any traffic regulation. Mere rear collision, without proof of any rashness, cannot establish contributory negligence.”

Critically, the tractor driver, who had tried to discredit the eye-witness, admitted during cross-examination that the vehicle had no diesel, no indicators, and had been left unattended on the road — a damning admission that sealed the finding of sole negligence.

“Tribunal’s Finding Of Contributory Negligence Is Presumptuous On The Face Of The Record” — No Specific Issue Framed, No Proof Offered

Justice Sharma noted with concern that although the insurance company and driver had raised the plea of contributory negligence, no issue was framed by the Tribunal on this aspect. This procedural lapse, the Court said, was fatal.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in M. Nithya v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court held that “in absence of a specific issue on contributory negligence, the Tribunal cannot proceed to reduce compensation on that basis.”

The Court also rebuked the Tribunal for placing weight on the fact that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. Emphasizing the settled principle, the Court declared: “The mere fact that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, in a case where the death was due to collision with an unlit stationary vehicle at night, cannot be stretched to infer negligence without proof.”

“Family Pension Is Not A Windfall From The Tortfeasor — It Flows From The Deceased’s Own Service And Cannot Be Deducted From Compensation”

In a firm rebuke to the MACT’s assessment of loss of dependency, Justice Sharma ruled that the deduction of ₹14,679 per month, being the family pension received by the widow, was a legal error.

Referring extensively to Mrs. Helen C. Rebello v. MSRTC, Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, and Hanumantharaju B v. M. Akram Pasha, the Court held: “Family pension is a deferred benefit earned by the deceased during his service. It accrues independent of the accident and cannot be used to reduce the liability of the wrongdoer.”

She added that “to permit deduction of such pensionary benefits would be to reward the tortfeasor for the deceased’s long-standing public service — a proposition legally and morally untenable.”

The Court emphasized that the deceased’s family would have received the pension regardless of how he died, and therefore, the family’s entitlement to full compensation must remain intact.

“Split Multiplier Is Alien To Motor Vehicles Act — Future Retirement Or Reduced Income Is No Ground For Bifurcation Of Compensation”

Another grave illegality committed by the MACT was the application of a "split multiplier" — wherein it calculated compensation in two parts: one till the deceased's retirement and another post-retirement at a reduced assumed income. The High Court dismantled this approach entirely.

Citing Preetha Krishnan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 INSC 1293, the Court reiterated that “the age of the deceased at the time of death is the sole determinant for choosing the multiplier — there is no scope for hypothetical speculation about future income changes.”

The Court held that the deceased’s monthly income, including Army pension and salary from UHBVNL, stood at ₹44,679. After adding 30% for future prospects and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the Court fixed the monthly loss of dependency at ₹38,722. Applying a multiplier of 13 (as per Sarla Verma v. DTC), the total compensation came to ₹61,50,632.

“Conscious, Consistent, and Cogent Testimony Cannot Be Undermined By Conjecture” — Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Of ₹47.5 Lakhs

Justice Sharma allowed the appeal, modifying the award dated 10.08.2016 and enhancing the compensation by ₹47,52,820. Additionally, interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded on the enhanced amount from the date of claim petition till realisation.

The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the entire enhanced amount with interest before the Tribunal within two months. The Tribunal, in turn, was instructed to disburse the compensation to the claimants, ensuring smooth and expeditious execution.

“Rear-End Collision Does Not Automatically Imply Fault Of The Deceased — Especially When The Vehicle Ahead Is Parked Illegally In Darkness”

The judgment marks a critical reaffirmation of fundamental tort principles — that liability must be based on clear proof, not presumption; that statutory duties (such as keeping lights on parked vehicles) are enforceable obligations; and that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be calculated fairly, without penalizing dependents for service benefits that they rightfully earned.

As Justice Sharma concluded:

“The finding of contributory negligence was rooted in conjecture and flawed presumptions. The evidence leads to only one inescapable conclusion — the accident was solely due to the negligent act of parking a tractor-trolley without lights or indicators on a public road at night. The Tribunal’s award deserved and now stands corrected.”

Date of Decision: January 29, 2026