A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has awarded compensation of more than ₹2.92 crore to a 32-year-old marketing executive who suffered 88 per cent permanent disability in a road accident in 2020.

The Tribunal rejected the insurer’s contention that the victim was partly responsible for the accident because he was not wearing a helmet. It held that merely violating a traffic rule does not amount to contributory negligence unless there is evidence establishing that the violation contributed to the accident.

Presiding Officer Abhilash Malhotra was hearing a claim petition filed by Nilmani Chauhan, who sustained a traumatic spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia and a neurogenic bladder. The injuries left him unable to stand or walk and dependent on an attendant for basic functions.

According to Chauhan’s case, he suffered grievous injuries on December 30, 2020, when a car allegedly being driven rashly and negligently collided with his two-wheeler.

In its August 12 order, the Tribunal noted that Chauhan’s lower body had become dysfunctional and that he required assistance for passing urine as he could no longer feel the need to do so. His employer had continued paying his salary on humanitarian grounds while the claim proceedings were pending.

The Tribunal observed that, considering the nature of his injuries, Chauhan would not be able to resume his work as a marketing executive, which required considerable movement. Even a desk job, it noted, would require the assistance of a full-time attendant.

Holding the car driver, Ramesh, responsible for rash and negligent driving, the Tribunal directed IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay compensation exceeding ₹2.92 crore, including interest. The award covered various components, including loss of future earnings, medical expenses and attendant charges.

The insurer argued that Chauhan’s failure to wear a helmet amounted to contributory negligence. The Tribunal, however, rejected the contention.

It held that merely because the injured person was not wearing a helmet, it could not automatically be concluded that he contributed to the accident.

The Tribunal observed that a traffic-law violation can constitute contributory negligence only when there is evidence demonstrating that the violation had a causal connection with the accident. While acknowledging that riding without a helmet constitutes an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal said it could not, by itself, be treated as a rash or negligent act that caused the accident.

Tribunal Rejects Insurer’s ‘Fake Accident’ Claim

The Tribunal also dismissed the insurance company’s allegation that the accident was a fabricated case.

It noted that the insurer’s objection was raised belatedly. The Tribunal pointed out that if the insurer suspected a fake accident, it could have approached the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) for an investigation.

Despite possessing an investigator’s report, the insurance company did not lodge any complaint with the DCP at the relevant time.

The Tribunal observed that a timely complaint could have enabled the authorities to investigate the allegation and determine the truth. Instead, the insurer remained silent and raised the issue only during the claim proceedings.

It further noted that there was no material on record warranting distrust of the investigation or the findings of the investigating officer, particularly since the insurer had neither lodged a complaint nor filed a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held the driver liable for the accident and awarded Chauhan compensation of over ₹2.92 crore.