The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, ruled that contributory negligence cannot be presumed without direct or corroborative evidence. The ruling was made in Prabhavathi & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal Nos. 3465-3466 of 2025), where the Court set aside the High Court’s finding that the deceased was 25% negligent in a fatal motor vehicle accident case.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic road accident on June 6, 2016, in which a 38-year-old man, Boobalan, lost his life. He was traveling on his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala when he was struck by a Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) bus (Registration No. KA-01/F-9555), which was being driven rashly and negligently. The impact resulted in his death on the spot due to severe injuries.
The deceased’s dependents, including his wife and children, filed a compensation claim of Rs. 3,00,00,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), asserting that he was the sole earning member of the family and earned Rs. 70,000 per month as an Executive Housekeeper at Hotel Royal Orchid, Bengaluru.
Legal Issues and Tribunal’s Decision
The IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7), in its order dated December 12, 2017, considered the deceased’s last drawn salary to be Rs. 62,725 per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 75,97,060, along with interest at 9% per annum. The Tribunal attributed the accident solely to the negligence of the BMTC bus driver.
High Court’s Ruling
Both parties appealed before the Karnataka High Court. The claimants sought an enhancement of the compensation, while the BMTC challenged the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation. The High Court, in its judgment dated October 1, 2020, ruled that the accident involved contributory negligence—attributing 75% fault to the BMTC driver and 25% to the deceased. It also reassessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000 and awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 77,50,000, but reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum.
Supreme Court’s Verdict and Observations
The claimants, dissatisfied with the High Court’s finding of contributory negligence and the revised income assessment, approached the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra examined the evidence and concluded that the High Court’s assessment of contributory negligence was incorrect.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court:
- Contributory Negligence Must Be Based on Evidence: Citing Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjunjamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166 and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh & Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 339, the Court held: “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.”
- Standard of Proof in Motor Accident Cases: The Court reiterated its stance from Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468 and Rajwati alias Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699), affirming that: “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.”
- Assessment of Monthly Income: The Court found that the High Court had erroneously reduced the monthly income to Rs. 50,000 despite clear evidence (Pay Slip – Ex. P.16) indicating the deceased’s last drawn salary was Rs. 62,725. Accordingly, the Court reinstated the Tribunal’s assessment.
Revised Compensation Calculation
Based on its findings, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation as follows:
| Compensation Head | Amount Awarded |
|---|---|
| Monthly Income | Rs. 62,725 |
| Yearly Income | Rs. 7,52,700 |
| Future Prospects (40%) | Rs. 10,53,780 |
| Deduction (1/4) | Rs. 7,90,335 |
| Multiplier (15) | Rs. 1,18,55,025 |
| Loss of Estate | Rs. 18,150 |
| Funeral Expenses | Rs. 18,150 |
| Loss of Consortium | Rs. 1,93,600 |
| Total Compensation | Rs. 1,20,84,925 |
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the compensation awarded by the High Court, increasing it to Rs. 1,20,84,925. The interest rate was restored to 9% per annum as determined by the Tribunal.
