Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case

When the Evidence is Clear, Liability Cannot Be Shifted - In a judgment Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company’s appeals seeking to reduce compensation awarded to the family of Deepak Bisht, who lost his life in a 2016 road accident, and Praveen Kumar Singh, who was injured in the same incident. The Court not only upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) findings of sole negligence on the part of the truck driver but also enhanced the compensation for the victim’s family from ₹31,57,480/- to ₹42,46,000/-.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, rejecting the argument of contributory negligence, held that the car was pushed into another truck due to the rear-end collision, not because of any fault of the deceased driver. The Court made it clear: "The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the truck driver who hit the car from behind. There is no basis to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased."

The incident occurred on June 19, 2016, at 12:45 a.m., when Deepak Bisht and Praveen Kumar Singh were traveling from Moradabad to Delhi in a car. As they reached Galandh Chauraha, opposite Jindal Pipe Factory in District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, a truck ahead of them (UP 22T-5401) applied sudden brakes. Bisht, who was driving, also applied brakes. However, a second truck (UP 22T-9446) crashed into the car from behind, forcing it into the first truck.

Deepak Bisht died on the spot, while Praveen Kumar Singh sustained serious injuries. A charge sheet was filed against the driver of the rear truck, Asak Ali, in FIR No. 351/2016, under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

Despite clear evidence, the insurance company attempted to argue that the deceased driver was also negligent. It claimed that his own fault contributed to the accident and that the compensation awarded was excessive.

"The Car Was Pushed Into the Truck Ahead, It Did Not Crash Due to Driver's Mistake": High Court Affirms Sole Negligence of the Truck Driver

Rejecting the insurance company’s plea, the Court emphasized that the evidence was clear and undisputed. Referring to the testimony of Praveen Kumar Singh (PW-1), who was in the car at the time of the accident, the Court observed:

"The car had come to a halt when the truck ahead applied brakes. The deceased did not lose control; rather, it was the rear truck that rammed into the car, forcing it into the vehicle ahead. The sequence of events does not support the theory of contributory negligence."

The Court further noted that: "Had the deceased been negligent, he would have hit the truck ahead without any external force. The forensic evidence and mechanical inspection show that the primary impact came from behind, proving that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of truck No. UP 22T-9446."

The Court concluded that the insurance company’s attempt to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased was unfounded and was merely an attempt to evade liability.

"Future Prospects Should Be 40%, Not 50%": Court Partially Allows Insurance Company’s Appeal on One Ground

While rejecting the primary defense of contributory negligence, the Court partially allowed the insurance company’s objection to the calculation of future prospects. It pointed out that the MACT had wrongly applied a 50% increase for future prospects, whereas, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), for self-employed individuals, the increase should be 40%.

"The Tribunal erred in applying a 50% increase in future prospects. As per settled law, self-employed individuals are entitled to a 40% increase, and the same must be applied in this case," the Court held.

Consequently, the compensation amount was recalculated based on a 40% increase instead of 50%.

"Compensation Must Reflect the True Earnings of the Deceased": Court Accepts Revised Income Tax Records and Enhances Award

The victim’s family, in a cross-appeal, argued that the MACT had undervalued the deceased’s income, leading to lower compensation. They produced Income Tax Returns from 2013 to 2017, proving that his annual income in 2016-2017 was ₹3,76,700/-.

Accepting this, the Court observed: "The Tribunal should have considered the most recent Income Tax Return filed before the accident. Since the deceased’s income was ₹3,76,700/-, the compensation must be revised accordingly."

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹42,46,000/- based on the updated income records.

"Loss of Consortium Compensation Must Be Granted Individually to Each Family Member"

The High Court also modified the amount granted under "Loss of Consortium." The Tribunal had awarded only ₹40,000/- in total, whereas the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pranay Sethi mandates that each dependent is entitled to ₹40,000/- separately.

"Compensation for loss of consortium should be given individually to each family member. Since there are three dependents, the amount must be ₹1,20,000/- instead of ₹40,000/-," the Court ruled.

"Interest Rate of 8% is Justified": Court Rejects Insurance Company’s Plea for Reduction

The insurance company had sought a reduction in the interest rate from 8%, arguing that it was on the higher side. The Court dismissed this, stating:

"The Tribunal exercised its discretion in awarding interest at 8%, and there is no compelling reason to interfere with this rate."

"Fair and Just Compensation Cannot Be Denied": Court Directs Insurance Company to Deposit Enhanced Compensation Within 45 Days

Summing up its findings, the Court concluded: "When negligence is proven beyond doubt, the insurance company cannot avoid liability by making weak claims of contributory negligence. Compensation must be just, fair, and reflective of the deceased’s actual earnings. The enhanced amount must be paid without delay.

The insurance company was directed to deposit the revised compensation within 45 days, ensuring that the victim’s family received timely justice.

With this ruling, the Delhi High Court has once again reinforced that negligence must be proven with evidence, not assumptions. It has prevented the insurance company from shifting blame to the deceased and denying rightful compensation to his family. The judgment also clarifies the correct legal principles for future prospects and loss of consortium, ensuring that victims of road accidents are not shortchanged in their rightful claims.

Date of decision: 07/03/2025