The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if the deceased did not have a licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him.

The High Court was considering an appeal challenging an order passed by the MACT awarding a sum of Rs 3,42,750 in favour of the appellants as compensation along with interest. The appellants sought enhancement of the compensation amount.

The Single Bench of Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held, “So far as the second contention raised by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction of 25% on account of contributory negligence is concerned, the said contention deserves acceptance for the reason that the deceased could not have been held liable to contribute for accident simply for the reason that he had no driving license. In case, the deceased was not having the licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him. In the present case, the Tribunal has returned the findings that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which findings have not been assailed.”

Senior Advocate N.K. Thakur represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Devyani Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The parents of the deceased had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs 10 lakh for untimely death of their son. The deceased had died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place in 2013. The appellants challenged the award on the ground that the income of the deceased was wrongly taken as Rs 3,000 per month, whereas it should have been taken on a higher side in view of the principles enunciated in Kishan Gopal & another. vs. Lala & Ors. (2014). The Petitioners had also claimed that the Tribunal erred while deducting 25% on account of contributory negligence.

Reasoning

Considering the fact that the deceased was a student of 10+1 and he had a bright future, the Bench accepted the contention raised by the appellants that the Tribunal had erred while taking the income of the deceased as Rs 3,000. “Since the deceased was 16 years old and further had done his matriculation as is evident from Exhibit PX and scored Second Division, his income can be considered at least at the rate of Rs.150 per day, meaning thereby, the notional income of deceased would be Rs.4,500/- per month.”

Since the deceased was aged 16 years and below 40 years, the Bench held that while computing the income of the deceased, 40% towards the future prospects had to be added in the income of the deceased and the same was taken as Rs 4,500 per month. Coming to the aspect of deduction of 25% on account of contributory negligence, the Bench held, “...the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal holding that since the deceased was driving the scooter without licence, he is liable for contributory negligence is wrong and further the finding to deduct 25% of the compensation amount is also wrong and illegal and these findings are set aside.”

Thus, enhancing the interest and granting compensation under the head of filial consortium, the Bench allowed the appeal. The Bench ordered, “...the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal below is modified and a total sum of Rs.8,05,400/- is awarded in favour of the appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition.”

Cause Title: Madhu Joshi v. Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:38505)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate N.K. Thakur, Advocate Divya Raj Singh

Respondent: Senior Advocate Devyani Sharma, Advocate Anirudh Sharma

Click here to read/download Order


Himachal Pradesh High Court

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.