Absence of Driving Licence Not Per se Contributory Negligence:
Commentary on Madhu Joshi v. Rajesh Kumar @ Sonu, FAO (MVA) No. 341 of 2015, Himachal Pradesh High Court (14 November 2025)

---

1. Introduction

The decision in Madhu Joshi and another v. Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others by the Himachal Pradesh High Court (per Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.) is a significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) appellate judgment. It deals with:

• Assessment of notional income and future prospects of a non-earning minor student.
• The legality of reducing compensation on the basis of contributory negligence merely because the deceased had no driving licence.
• Determination of the appropriate rate of interest on compensation.
• Application of the principles of consortium, especially filial consortium to parents on the death of a child.

The case arises from a fatal motor accident that claimed the life of a 16‑year‑old boy, Prabhat Joshi, son of the appellants (Madhu Joshi and her husband). The parents sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The High Court not only enhanced the compensation substantially—from Rs. 3,42,750/- to Rs. 8,05,400/-—but also laid down, or firmly reiterated, several important principles, particularly that:

• Absence of a driving licence on the part of the deceased cannot, by itself, justify a finding of contributory negligence, where the negligence of the other vehicle is otherwise proved.
• Courts must individualize notional income based on the facts (such as the deceased’s education and prospects) and are not rigidly bound by general minimum wage figures.
• Future prospects and filial consortium must be awarded in line with the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
• Three‑Judge Bench decisions of the Supreme Court awarding 9% interest on compensation are to be followed, and even their obiter dicta are treated as binding on High Courts.

---

2. Summary of the Judgment

The appellants, parents of the deceased, challenged the MACT award dated 22.04.2015 in M.A.C.P. No. 18 of 2013, which had:

• Assessed the deceased’s income at Rs. 3,000/- per month.
• Deducted 25% of the compensation on the ground of contributory negligence, solely because the deceased did not possess a driving licence.
• Awarded interest at 7.5% per annum.
• Did not award any amount towards consortium.

The High Court:

• Enhanced the deceased’s notional monthly income to Rs. 4,500/- (Rs. 150 per day).
• Added 40% towards future prospects in line with the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
• Applied a multiplier of 18 and deducted 50% for personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor.
• Set aside the finding of contributory negligence and the corresponding 25% deduction, holding that lack of licence cannot, by itself, establish contributory negligence.
• Enhanced the rate of interest from 7.5% to 9% per annum, relying on three‑Judge Bench decisions of the Supreme Court.
• Awarded filial consortium of Rs. 50,000/- each to both parents, following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and the escalation principle in Pranay Sethi.
• Maintained the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.

The final compensation was computed as follows:

• Loss of dependency: Rs. 6,80,400/-
• Filial consortium: Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- each to the parents)
• Funeral expenses: Rs. 25,000/-
• Total: Rs. 8,05,400/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition.

The apportionment of compensation—75% to appellant No. 1 (mother) and 25% to appellant No. 2 (father)—was maintained. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 90 days.

---

3. Factual Background and Procedural History

On 16.04.2013, a motor vehicle accident occurred at Rakkar Colony near the Chevrolet showroom, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, involving a tipper truck bearing registration HR-64-6574. The accident resulted in the death of Prabhat Joshi, a 16‑year‑old student studying in 10+1.

His parents instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation from:

• The driver (respondent no. 1, Rajesh Kumar @ Sonu),
• The owner of the tipper (respondent no. 2), and
• The insurer (respondent no. 3).

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper truck’s driver. However, it:

• Assessed the deceased’s income at Rs. 3,000/- per month.
• Deduced 25% of the compensation on the ground that the deceased was riding a scooter without a driving licence and, therefore, was contributorially negligent.
• Granted total compensation of Rs. 3,42,750/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

Aggrieved, the parents filed the present appeal (FAO (MVA) No. 341 of 2015) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking:

1. Enhancement of the deceased’s income and inclusion of future prospects.
2. Deletion of the finding of contributory negligence and restoration of the full award.
3. Enhancement of interest from 7.5% to 9% per annum.
4. Award of appropriate amounts under the head of consortium.

Respondents 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. The insurer (respondent no. 3) contested the appeal.

---

4. Issues Before the High Court

The High Court had to determine the following key issues:

1. Notional Income and Future Prospects
   Whether the Tribunal erred in taking the income of a 16‑year‑old student at Rs. 3,000/- per month and in not granting future prospects, especially in the light of evidence that he was a bright student with aspirations and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Kishan Gopal v. Lala and Pranay Sethi.
2. Contributory Negligence and Absence of Driving Licence
   Whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting 25% of the compensation on the ground that the deceased was riding a scooter without a driving licence, despite the finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.
3. Rate of Interest
   What should be the appropriate rate of interest on the compensation: 7.5% per annum (as contended by the insurer relying on Kajal and Master Ayush) or 9% per annum (as claimed by the appellants relying on Sube Singh, Jagdish and Nutan Rani)?
4. Consortium and Conventional Heads
   Whether the appellants were entitled to any amount towards filial consortium and whether the Tribunal erred in not granting the same in the light of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Pranay Sethi.

---

5. Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

5.1 Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244

The appellants relied on Kishan Gopal to argue that the Tribunal’s assessment of income at Rs. 3,000/- per month was unrealistically low. In Kishan Gopal, the Supreme Court:

• Considered the death of a minor child belonging to a rural agricultural family.
• Enhanced the notional income considerably above the static figure in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, noting inflation and changing socio‑economic realities.

The relevance here was twofold:

1. Recognition that notional income for children/non-earning persons should not remain frozen at historic statutory figures.
2. Courts are permitted, and indeed required, to adopt a realistic, not merely mechanical approach to income assessment for minors, factoring in future potential and family background.

The High Court did not set out Kishan Gopal in detail but clearly adopted its spirit: that a reasonably higher notional income may be fixed in appropriate cases, especially where the evidence suggests a promising future.

5.2 National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Constitution Bench)

Pranay Sethi provided the constitutional‑bench framework for:

• Future prospects (percentage additions to income based on age and employment status).
• Conventional heads — such as consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate — with fixed standard amounts.
• Periodic enhancement of conventional heads by 10% every three years.

The High Court applied Pranay Sethi in two critical ways:

1. Future Prospects:
   Since the deceased was 16 years old (below 40), the Court added 40% of the notional income as future prospects, in line with Pranay Sethi’s directions.
2. Conventional Head – Consortium:
   The Court referred to the 10% increase every three years in the amounts prescribed in Pranay Sethi and used this to justify awarding Rs. 50,000/- each to the parents as filial consortium, instead of the initial Rs. 40,000/- benchmark.

5.3 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130

In Magma, the Supreme Court made a doctrinally important clarification by recognizing different types of consortium:

• Spousal consortium – for a surviving spouse.
• Parental consortium – for children on the death of a parent.
• Filial consortium – for parents on the death of a child.

Magma held that parents are entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium when their child dies due to a motor accident, and that such consortium is a distinct head of compensation, separate from loss of dependency.

The High Court relied on Magma to hold that:

• The Tribunal’s complete omission to award any consortium was erroneous.
• Both parents are entitled to filial consortium for the emotional loss suffered on account of their son’s untimely death.

5.4 Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 18

In Sube Singh, a three‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court:

• Enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9% per annum on the awarded compensation.

The High Court, placing reliance on this authoritative bench strength, concluded that:

• 9% interest per annum is justified and appropriate.
• Where there is a conflict or variation in interest rates across various Supreme Court decisions, High Courts should ordinarily follow three‑Judge Bench pronouncements.

5.5 Jagdish v. Mohan & Ors., (2018) 4 SCC 571 and Nutan Rani & Anr. v. Gurmail Singh & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 109

Both Jagdish and Nutan Rani are also three‑Judge Bench decisions in which the Supreme Court awarded or enhanced the rate of interest to 9% per annum on compensation amounts.

The High Court invoked these decisions to:

• Demonstrate a discernible trend of the Supreme Court favouring 9% interest in appropriate cases.
• Reinforce that such pronouncements—even if arguably in the nature of obiter dicta on the exact rate—are binding on High Courts.

The Court explicitly observed that even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court, thereby underlining the imperative to follow these decisions.

5.6 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2022) 7 SCC 738

The insurer relied on Kajal and Master Ayush, both decisions involving severe disability of minor claimants, in which the Supreme Court awarded interest at 7.5% per annum.

The High Court acknowledged these cases but preferred to follow the three‑Judge Bench line of reasoning in Sube Singh, Jagdish and Nutan Rani which had awarded interest @ 9% per annum. Thus, it treated the 7.5% decisions as not displacing the authority of the three‑Judge Bench rulings on the rate of interest.

---

6. Court’s Legal Reasoning

6.1 Determination of Notional Income and Future Prospects

The Tribunal had fixed the deceased’s income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, largely on the basis that he was unemployed and a student. The High Court rejected this as inadequate, relying heavily on:

• Educational qualification: The deceased had passed matriculation (10th standard) and was studying in 10+1, as evidenced by Exhibit PX.
• Character and potential: The mother (PW‑3) deposed, by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A), that the deceased was a brilliant student, actively interested in sports and cultural activities, and aspired to become an IAS officer.
• Unchallenged testimony: Crucially, in cross‑examination, the insurer did not challenge or contradict the assertion that the deceased aimed to become an IAS officer.

Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that:

• The deceased had a bright future and genuine prospects of a decent earning capacity.
• His notional income could be reasonably taken at Rs. 150 per day, i.e., Rs. 4,500/- per month.

The insurer sought to rely on data from the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, suggesting that the national minimum wage at the relevant time was Rs. 115/- per day. The Court accepted this as a correct figure in the abstract but held that:

• Such minimum wage data cannot be applied mechanically in every case.
• Where evidence shows better educational achievements and strong future prospects—as here—courts are justified in fixing a higher notional income than the basic minimum wage.

This approach underscores a fact‑sensitive and individualized method rather than a rigid adherence to general statistical data.

Having fixed income at Rs. 4,500/- per month, the Court then applied Pranay Sethi to add 40% future prospects (since the deceased was below 40), raising the income to:

• Rs. 4,500/- + 40% (Rs. 1,800/-) = Rs. 6,300/- per month.

Being a bachelor, 50% was deducted towards personal and living expenses:

• 50% of Rs. 6,300/- = Rs. 3,150/- (monthly contribution to family).

On an annual basis, this came to:

• Rs. 3,150 x 12 = Rs. 37,800/- per annum.

Applying a multiplier of 18 (appropriate for the deceased’s age of 16), the loss of dependency was calculated as:

• Rs. 37,800 x 18 = Rs. 6,80,400/-.

6.2 Contributory Negligence and Absence of Driving Licence

A pivotal aspect of the judgment is the rejection of the Tribunal’s finding of 25% contributory negligence solely because the deceased did not possess a driving licence.

The High Court emphasized:

• The Tribunal had already held that the truck driver was driving rashly and negligently, and that this was the cause of the accident.
• These findings on rash and negligent driving were not challenged by the insurer in appeal.

In these circumstances, the Court held:

• Merely riding a scooter without a valid driving licence does not automatically amount to contributory negligence.
• The absence of licence might attract penal consequences under the Motor Vehicles Act, but it does not, without more, establish that the deceased contributed to causing the accident.
• Contributory negligence requires evidence that the deceased’s conduct causally contributed to the occurrence of the accident or to the damage suffered, which was absent here.

Accordingly, the Court:

• Set aside the deduction of 25% compensation made on account of alleged contributory negligence.
• Clarified a crucial legal principle for MACT jurisprudence: non‑possession of a driving licence by the deceased claimant is not, by itself, a valid ground to reduce compensation on the basis of contributory negligence where the negligence of the offending vehicle is otherwise established.

6.3 Rate of Interest on Compensation

The Tribunal had awarded interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellants sought enhancement to 9% per annum.

The insurer relied on Kajal and Master Ayush to argue for 7.5%, while the appellants relied on Sube Singh, Jagdish and Nutan Rani, all three‑Judge Bench decisions granting 9% interest.

The High Court reasoned that:

• Where multiple Supreme Court decisions exist on a point like the appropriate rate of interest, three‑Judge Bench decisions have greater precedential weight than two‑Judge Bench decisions.
• In Sube Singh, Jagdish and Nutan Rani, the Supreme Court had either awarded or enhanced the rate of interest to 9% per annum.
• These pronouncements, being of a larger Bench, must be followed, and the High Court is bound even by their obiter dicta when directly relevant.

On that basis, the Court ordered that:

• The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

6.4 Award of Filial Consortium and Conventional Heads

The Tribunal had not awarded any consortium. The High Court considered this contrary to the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and refined in Pranay Sethi.

Key points in the Court’s reasoning:

• Magma mandates that parents are entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium when a child dies due to a motor accident.
• In Pranay Sethi, the Constitution Bench provided base amounts for conventional heads, including consortium, and directed a 10% increase every three years.
• Given that Pranay Sethi was pronounced in 2017, and the present decision was delivered in 2025, some escalation was warranted.

The Court therefore held:

• Each parent (the two appellants) is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards filial consortium.
• Total consortium awarded: Rs. 1,00,000/-.
• The Tribunal’s award of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses was left undisturbed.

6.5 Apportionment and Execution

The High Court maintained the Tribunal’s direction regarding apportionment:

• 75% of the compensation to appellant No. 1 (the mother).
• 25% to appellant No. 2 (the father).

This apportionment recognizes, in effect, the mother’s often greater day‑to‑day emotional and caregiving loss, though the judgment does not expressly reason at length on this point.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 90 days in the Registry of the High Court. Pending applications stood disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.

6.6 Comparative Snapshot: Tribunal vs. High Court

Parameter	Tribunal	High Court (Modified)
Monthly income of deceased	Rs. 3,000/-	Rs. 4,500/- (Rs. 150/day)
Future prospects	Not awarded	+40% (Rs. 1,800/-) = Rs. 6,300/- p.m.
Deduction for personal expenses	50% (bachelor)	50% (bachelor) – maintained
Annual loss of dependency	Not expressly detailed	Rs. 37,800/-
Multiplier	18	18 (maintained)
Loss of dependency	Part of Rs. 3,42,750/- total	Rs. 6,80,400/-
Contributory negligence deduction	25% (for no driving licence)	Nil – finding set aside
Filial consortium	Not awarded	Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- each to parents)
Funeral expenses	Rs. 25,000/-	Rs. 25,000/- (unchanged)
Total compensation	Rs. 3,42,750/-	Rs. 8,05,400/-
Rate of interest	7.5% p.a.	9% p.a.

---

7. Impact and Significance

7.1 Clarification on Contributory Negligence and Driving Licence

Perhaps the most important doctrinal contribution of this judgment is the clear statement that:

Absence of a driving licence, by itself, is not sufficient to infer contributory negligence by the deceased.

This has far‑reaching consequences:

• It prevents insurers and tribunals from mechanically reducing compensation in any case where the deceased or injured victim was unlicensed, without examining whether their conduct actually contributed to the accident.
• It aligns with a fault‑based liability regime, where liability depends on negligence causing the accident, not merely regulatory infractions.
• It protects the rights of minors and other vulnerable road users who may technically be in breach of licensing rules but are nonetheless victims of another driver’s proven negligence.

7.2 Individualized Notional Income for Non‑earning Students

By fixing notional income at Rs. 4,500/- per month (higher than government‑indicated minimum wages), the Court:

• Reinforces that notional income is not a one‑size‑fits‑all figure.
• Encourages tribunals to consider:
  • Educational level,
  • Academic performance,
  • Extracurricular interests, and
  • Stated aspirations (e.g., aspiration to join the civil services).
• Marks a trend towards realistic and humane assessments of the economic impact of a child’s death.

7.3 Reinforcement of Future Prospects and Consortium Jurisprudence

The judgment strongly signals that:

• Tribunals must compulsorily consider future prospects even in cases of young or student deceased victims, following Pranay Sethi.
• Filial consortium to parents is an established and separate head of compensation that cannot be ignored post‑Magma.

This will likely influence MACT practice in Himachal Pradesh to:

• Systematically award consortium to all eligible dependants.
• Avoid under‑compensation where promising young lives are lost.

7.4 Interest Rate Standardization towards 9%

By expressly preferring three‑Judge Bench decisions awarding 9% interest, the High Court:

• Contributes to a move towards standardization at 9% p.a. in the State’s MACT awards, barring special circumstances.
• Clarifies that, for subordinate courts, three‑Judge Bench decisions of the Supreme Court carry greater authority on such questions than later or parallel two‑Judge Bench rulings with lower rates.

7.5 Binding Nature of Supreme Court Obiter Dicta

The Court’s observation that even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court is notable. Practically, this:

• Signals to subordinate courts and tribunals in Himachal Pradesh that they should follow the Supreme Court’s expressed views even if not strictly part of the ratio decidendi, especially when emanating from larger Benches.
• Strengthens vertical judicial discipline and enhances uniformity in the application of MACT principles.

---

8. Complex Concepts Simplified

8.1 Notional Income

Notional income is an income figure assumed by the court for a person who was not actually earning at the time of death or injury (e.g., children, students, homemakers). It is used to:

• Estimate the economic loss suffered by the dependants.
• Ensure that non‑earning lives are not treated as valueless in economic terms.

Courts may rely on:

• Statutory schedules,
• Minimum wages,
• Educational qualifications, and
• Evidence of potential and life prospects.

In this case, the Court used the deceased’s education, academic performance, sports and cultural involvement, and IAS aspiration to fix a higher notional income than the bare minimum wage.

8.2 Future Prospects

Future prospects refer to the likely increase in a person’s income over time due to promotions, increments, inflation, and career growth. The Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi standardized percentages for these additions:

• Generally, 40% addition for persons below 40 years (whether salaried or self‑employed, as later clarified).

Courts add this percentage to the income to reflect a more realistic long‑term earning picture, rather than freezing income at the level at the time of death. Here, a 40% addition was applied.

8.3 Multiplier Method

The multiplier method is a standard formula used in motor accident compensation:

1. The court determines the annual loss of dependency (what the deceased would have contributed per year to the family).
2. A multiplier is chosen based on the age of the deceased (or sometimes the claimants) using tables approved by the Supreme Court.
3. Compensation = Annual loss of dependency × Multiplier.

In this case:

• Annual loss of dependency = Rs. 37,800/-.
• Multiplier = 18 (for a 16‑year‑old).
• Resulting in Rs. 6,80,400/- as loss of dependency.

8.4 Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence occurs when the victim’s own negligence contributes to causing the accident or the harm. If established, the court may reduce the compensation proportionately.

However:

• It is not enough that the victim violated some regulatory requirement (e.g., no licence, no helmet) unless that violation is causally linked to the accident or the injury.
• There must be evidence that the victim’s behaviour helped cause the collision or aggravated the harm.

Here, the High Court held that riding without a driving licence, in itself, is not proof that the deceased caused or contributed to the accident, particularly when the truck driver’s rash and negligent driving was clearly established as the cause.

8.5 Consortium (Spousal, Parental, Filial)

Consortium is compensation awarded for the loss of love, care, companionship, and affection resulting from the death or serious injury of a family member. As clarified in Magma:

• Spousal consortium: For the surviving husband or wife.
• Parental consortium: For children losing a parent.
• Filial consortium: For parents losing a child.

The present case concerns filial consortium, acknowledging the profound emotional and relational loss parents suffer when a child dies, distinct from mere financial dependence.

8.6 Obiter Dicta and Binding Effect

Obiter dicta are observations or remarks made by a court that are not strictly necessary for deciding the case (and thus not the “core” ratio decidendi). However:

• In the Indian judicial hierarchy, especially when emanating from the Supreme Court (and more so from a larger Bench), such dicta are treated with great respect.
• The High Court in this case went further to state that even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court, reinforcing a strong form of vertical stare decisis.

---

9. Conclusion

Madhu Joshi v. Rajesh Kumar @ Sonu is an important appellate decision in the MACT landscape of Himachal Pradesh and has persuasive value more broadly. Its key contributions can be distilled as follows:

1. Non‑possession of a driving licence by the deceased cannot, by itself, justify a finding of contributory negligence where the negligence of the offending vehicle is otherwise established. This protects victims and their families from arbitrary reductions in compensation.
2. The judgment underscores a fact-sensitive approach to notional income, particularly for non‑earning students with demonstrable academic and personal potential, rather than a rigid adherence to minimum wages or outdated statutory figures.
3. It affirms the mandatory application of future prospects and consortium (including filial consortium) as crystallized in Pranay Sethi and Magma, correcting earlier under‑awards by the Tribunal.
4. By following three‑Judge Bench decisions awarding 9% interest, the Court promotes consistency and clarity in the determination of interest on compensation, guiding subordinate courts and MACTs in the State.
5. The Court’s emphasis on the binding force of Supreme Court precedents and even their obiter dicta signals a robust commitment to vertical judicial discipline and uniform application of motor accident compensation principles.

In essence, this judgment advances a more humane, realistic, and legally coherent approach to compensating the families of deceased minors, shaping MACT jurisprudence on contributory negligence, valuation of young lives, and harmonized application of Supreme Court guidelines.