Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Presumed Without Evidence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Motor Accident Case

Strict Rules of Evidence Do Not Apply in Motor Accident Claims—Tribunals Must Rely on Preponderance of Probability - Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on February 28, 2025, held that contributory negligence cannot be imposed without direct or corroborative evidence. The case, Prabhavathi & Ors. v. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), arose from a tragic road accident where a BMTC bus collided with a motorcyclist, leading to his death on the spot. The claimants, who were dependents of the deceased, were awarded ₹75,97,060 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). However, the Karnataka High Court, while slightly increasing the compensation, reduced the liability of BMTC by attributing 25% negligence to the deceased.

The Supreme Court, rejecting the High Court’s approach, observed, "In the absence of any cogent evidence, the attribution of contributory negligence to the deceased is unsustainable in law. A presumption of negligence cannot be drawn merely because an accident involves two vehicles." The Court restored the full liability upon BMTC, enhanced the compensation to ₹1,20,84,925, and reaffirmed that motor accident claims must be adjudicated based on preponderance of probability rather than strict rules of evidence.

"A Fatal Collision and a Legal Battle Over Negligence and Compensation"
The case originated from an accident that occurred on June 6, 2016, when Boobalan, a 38-year-old Executive in the Housekeeping Department at Hotel Royal Orchid, Bengaluru, was riding his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction toward Madivala. A BMTC bus, bearing registration No. KA-01/F-9555, collided with him in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his instantaneous death due to grievous injuries.

The deceased was the sole earning member of his family. His dependents filed a claim petition before the MACT, seeking ₹3 crore in compensation, arguing that his last drawn salary, as per bank records, was ₹70,000 per month. The Tribunal, after assessing the evidence, awarded them ₹75,97,060 with 9% annual interest, holding BMTC fully liable for the accident.

BMTC, challenging the verdict, argued that the deceased was also negligent, and his income should be assessed lower than the claimed amount. The claimants, on the other hand, appealed for an increase in compensation on the ground that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the deceased’s income at ₹62,725 per month instead of ₹70,000.

The Karnataka High Court, in its decision dated October 1, 2020, partially allowed both appeals. It determined that both the deceased and the BMTC driver were responsible for the accident, assigning 25% contributory negligence to the deceased and 75% to the bus driver. The High Court also reduced the assessed monthly income of the deceased to ₹50,000, ultimately increasing the compensation marginally to ₹77,50,000 with interest reduced to 6% per annum.

"Contributory Negligence Must Be Based on Evidence, Not Assumption"
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's approach and held that the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on the part of the BMTC bus driver was correct. The Court emphasized that mere involvement of a two-wheeler in an accident with a larger vehicle does not automatically imply shared negligence. It cited Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjumamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, stating:

"In the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both vehicles. A finding of contributory negligence must be backed by material evidence, not mere conjecture."

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erroneously relied on an unsubstantiated theory of high-speed driving by the deceased, without any concrete proof. The judgment stressed: "There is no substantive evidence on record indicating that the deceased was driving negligently or at an excessive speed. The presumption of contributory negligence is legally unsustainable and cannot be upheld."

The Court also pointed out that the Spot Mahazar (Exhibit P3) did not indicate any fault on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence of P.W.1, an eyewitness, who confirmed that the BMTC bus driver was solely at fault.

Reiterating the principles laid down in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 339, the Court held: "In motor accident cases, courts must refrain from attributing negligence to the deceased unless the evidence clearly establishes it. A mere assumption that a motorcyclist contributed to the accident is contrary to settled legal principles."

By setting aside the High Court’s finding of contributory negligence, the Supreme Court restored full liability on BMTC, ensuring that the dependents of the deceased would receive their rightful compensation.

"Compensation Must Be Based on Proven Income—Tribunal’s Assessment Was Correct"
Another key issue before the Supreme Court was the correct determination of the deceased’s monthly income. The High Court had assessed the income at ₹50,000 per month, ignoring salary records that proved the deceased was earning ₹62,725 per month.

The Supreme Court corrected this error, holding that income determination should be based on the best available evidence and reasonable probability. Referring to Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468, the Court emphasized: "In motor accident claims, strict rules of evidence do not apply. The standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability, and courts must adopt a pragmatic approach while assessing compensation."

The judgment reaffirmed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, and courts must ensure that compensation is fair and just. In Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699), the Court had held: "Once the occurrence of an accident is established, the Tribunal’s role is to award just compensation, considering all relevant factors. The focus must be on securing the rights of the claimants rather than adopting a hyper-technical approach to evidence."

The Supreme Court, relying on this settled jurisprudence, restored the deceased’s assessed monthly income to ₹62,725 and accordingly recalculated the compensation.

"Supreme Court Enhances Compensation to ₹1,20,84,925"
With contributory negligence set aside and the deceased’s income correctly reassessed, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation, applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The final amount payable to the claimants was determined as ₹1,20,84,925, marking a significant enhancement from the amounts awarded by the Tribunal (₹75,97,060) and the High Court (₹77,50,000).

The Court also directed that the interest rate should remain at 9% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal, rather than the 6% set by the High Court.

The judgment concluded with a strong reaffirmation of the principles of justice in motor accident claims, stating: "Compensation in accident cases must reflect the true financial loss suffered by the dependents. Courts must prioritize fairness over technical rigidity, ensuring that victims' families are not denied their rightful dues due to erroneous assessments."

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces critical principles in motor accident claims, affirming that:

•    Contributory negligence must be proven with evidence and cannot be presumed.
•    Motor accident claims must be adjudicated on the basis of preponderance of probability, not strict evidence rules.
•    Compensation must be determined fairly, ensuring dependents receive their rightful dues.
•    Courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach rather than a mechanical application of law.
By setting aside contributory negligence, restoring the full liability on BMTC, and enhancing compensation to ₹1.2 crore, the Supreme Court ensured that justice was served in a fair and equitable manner.

Date of Decision: 28 February 2025