Supreme Court Enhances Compensation In Motor Accident Case

Alankar Mishra

Author

Updated: 16-04-2025 at 12:49 PM

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation In Motor Accident Case

It is emphasised that claims of contributory negligence must be supported by direct or corroborative evidence, as stated by the Supreme Court of India. In the case of Prabhavathi & Ors. Versus The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3465 - 3466 during the year 2025), the Court overturned the finding of the High Court of Karnataka, which rated the deceased’s negligence at 25% and ordered the new compensation to be issued at ₹1,20,84,925 along with 9% interest per annum.

Background Of The Case

Here, we examine the death of the executive housekeeper of Hotel Royal Orchid Boobalan, who died on 6th June 2016 after getting hit by a BMTC bus while driving a motorcycle. The registration of the bus was KA-01/F-9555, and the accident occurred while Boobalan was working. He died instantly on the scene due to the negligence of the BMTC driver.

His wife and children claim that since Boobalan was the primary earner for their family, earning 70,000 per month, they are owed 3 crore. The claim was filed under MACT, which stands for Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.

Tribunal And High Court Decisions

The Court's choice of recompense for damages incurred due to an accident and injury is very important. This case was taken up by the MACT as well as by the Karnataka High Court, and both made important decisions on it. Their judgments are as follows:

Ruling of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT)

The MACT Bangalore (SCCH-7), in its order dated 12th December 2017, has given an award of ₹75,97,060 with an interest of 9 Percent Per Annum, with the following considerations:

The last amount drawn from the deceased was ₹ 62,725 per month.
Full liability on BMTC Driver without any contributory negligence.

Karnataka High Court Ruling (1st October 2020)

The BMTC appealed, challenging negligence and compensation, while the claimants sought an increase.
The High Court decided to cut the monthly earnings of the deceased to Rs 50,000/-.
It presumed 25% contributory negligence and, therefore, afforded a sum of ₹77,50,000.
Reduced the interest rate from 9 per cent for the year to 6 per cent per annum.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Dissatisfied with the verdict of contributory negligence and the reduction in their income, the claimants escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the upper court’s decision.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

Contributory Negligence Must Be Proven with Evidence

The Court cited past judgments (Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjunjamma Mohan (2013) & Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015)) to assert that:

“In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, contributory negligence cannot be assumed.”
The High Court erred in assuming shared fault.

Standard of Proof in Motor Accident Cases

Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) & Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) were cited, emphasising:
The preponderance of probability standard applies, meaning proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, like in criminal cases.

Correct Income Assessment Restored

The deceased’s last drawn salary (₹62,725 as per Pay Slip - Ex. P.16) was wrongly reduced by the High Court.
The Supreme Court reinstated the Tribunal's assessment.

Revised Compensation Calculation By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made legal changes to the compensation review and was particular to legal deductions, prospects, and additional allowances. Below is the compensation calculation:

Compensation Head	Amount (₹)
Monthly Income	62,725
Yearly Income	7,52,700
Future Prospects (40%)	10,53,780
Deduction (1/4)	7,90,335
Multiplier (15)	1,18,55,025
Loss of Estate	18,150
Funeral Expenses	18,150
Loss of Consortium	1,93,600
Total Compensation	1,20,84,925

Final Awarded Compensation: ₹1,20,84,925
Restored Interest Rate: 9% per annum (as per Tribunal ruling).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court confirmed, once more, that self-inflicted negligence cannot be assumed by the courts unless there is clear proof of its existence, ensuring reasonable compensation for all victims. Through increasing the compensation and restoring the previously higher interest rate, the court has strengthened the principles of justice and facticity in motor accident cases.

Join the conversation and stay informed! Visit the Jaagruk Bharat community page and be part of an active, engaged community as we work day and night to bring information to your fingertips.