Court’s Decision
In an appeal, the Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the MACT award dated 16.12.2020. Justice Amit Mahajan held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in deducting 25% of the awarded compensation on the ground of contributory negligence, and reduced the deduction to 10%. The Court also found that the Tribunal was wrong in not awarding 25% for future prospects in accordance with the law laid down in Pranay Sethi. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of re-computation of the compensation on these revised terms, while affirming all other findings of the Tribunal.
Facts
The appellant, a manual labourer employed as a Helper in a furniture showroom, was grievously injured in a road accident that occurred on 30.04.2018 while he was crossing the road. As a result of the accident, he sustained multiple injuries and was assessed with 33% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb by a medical board.
He filed a claim before the MACT, which awarded him ₹5,21,091 with 9% interest from the date of filing the Detail Accident Report (07.09.2018) till realization. However, the Tribunal:
- Assessed functional disability at 17% instead of 33%.
- Deducted 25% towards contributory negligence.
- Declined 25% addition for loss of future prospects.
Aggrieved by this assessment, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal erred in computing the appellant’s functional disability at 17% instead of 33%?
- Whether the deduction of 25% towards contributory negligence was justified?
- Whether the denial of 25% future prospects was against settled principles?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the nature of his job as a Helper in a furniture showroom involved lifting, carrying, and shifting heavy furniture, and the 33% permanent disability had a direct impact on his earning capacity.
- Despite evidence of negligence by the driver, the Tribunal arbitrarily deducted 25% on the ground that the pedestrian was not on a zebra crossing, even though no specific evidence was produced by the respondent to prove contributory negligence.
- The denial of future prospects at 25% was contrary to the binding law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent No.2 (the insurer) did not dispute the claim for future prospects during the appeal. However, before the Tribunal, it relied on the cross-examination of the appellant where he admitted that there was no zebra crossing at the site and that the red-light was far away. It argued that this implied contributory negligence on part of the appellant.
Analysis of the Law
On functional disability, the Court referred to Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343], which held that in the absence of specific evidence to demonstrate how a physical disability affects earning capacity, the functional disability is not necessarily equivalent to the permanent disability percentage. This principle was reinforced in Rajender Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine Del 8839], where 33% functional disability was upheld in a case of 66% permanent disability.
On contributory negligence, the Court held that mere absence of zebra crossing does not amount to contributory negligence. The site plan showed that the accident occurred on the extreme left side of the road, and the respondent had not led any evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence raised by the police chargesheet filed under Sections 279/337 IPC. The Tribunal’s approach of attributing 25% negligence to the appellant was, therefore, excessive.
On future prospects, the Court applied the settled law laid down in Pranay Sethi, holding that the appellant was entitled to 25% addition towards loss of future prospects even if income was computed based on minimum wages. The insurance company did not dispute this position.
Precedent Analysis
- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343: Functional disability is distinct from permanent disability; impact on earning capacity must be specifically proved.
- Rajender Singh v. Bajaj Allianz 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8839: Functional disability upheld at 33% despite lack of specific evidence, based on general disability impact.
- Meera Devi v. H.P. RTC (2014) 4 SCC 511: Contributory negligence must be proved by cogent evidence.
- Pallavan Transport Corp. Ltd. v. Dhanalakshmi 2003 SCC OnLine Mad 677: Crossing road away from zebra crossing does not automatically imply negligence.
- Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8922: Chargesheet against driver and site of accident on left side held sufficient to rule out contributory negligence.
- Mahesh Prasad v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5759: Contributory negligence reduced from 25% to 10% despite pedestrian not using zebra crossing.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC: Future prospects to be awarded as part of income loss compensation.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view that functional disability should be less than the permanent disability in absence of proof of job profile. Since no employment record was submitted, 17% assessment was held reasonable.
- On contributory negligence, the Court emphasised that “merely because the victim sought to cross the road from a place other than a zebra-crossing, the same cannot be stated to be contributory negligence.” The chargesheet, site plan, and lack of rebuttal evidence all pointed to exclusive fault of the vehicle driver.
- On future prospects, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding 25% and directed the inclusion of this amount in recomputation.
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Upheld the 17% functional disability.
- Reduced contributory negligence deduction from 25% to 10%.
- Directed addition of 25% towards future prospects.
- Remanded the matter to the Tribunal for recalculating the total compensation.
- Directed the Tribunal to complete the exercise within four weeks from 03.07.2025, when the matter is next listed.
The rest of the Tribunal’s findings were not interfered with.
Implications
This judgment fortifies the principle that pedestrians are not presumed negligent merely for not crossing at zebra crossings. It also reinforces the claimant’s right to loss of future prospects, even when income is based on notional wages. The decision affirms that courts must carefully evaluate the totality of circumstances and not mechanically impose deductions without cogent proof. It is a reminder to insurers that the burden lies on them to establish contributory negligence, especially where a police chargesheet establishes fault against the driver.
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Quashes Detention of Alleged “Money Lending Offender”