To establish contributory negligence in MACT claims, some act/omission, which materially contributed to accident/damage, should be attributed to person against whom it is alleged:SC

feature-top

Read Order: K. Anusha & Ors vs. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, October 14, 2021: The Supreme Court has observed that, to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.

The observation came pursuant to an appeal filed by the claimants-appellants in a motor accident claim challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the High Court, whereby it was held that the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling was also guilty of contributory negligence and that therefore the claimants are entitled only to 50% of the amount of compensation as determined. 

The appellants had primarily raised two grievances, namely, (i) that the finding of contributory negligence was wholly arbitrary and unjustified; and (ii) that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to take care of the future prospects, in the light of the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others

The Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian found that the first grievance of the appellants about the finding of contributory negligence was liable to be sustained for three reasons namely, 

(i) that even according to the Tribunal and the High Court, the spot where the lorry was parked, as indicated in FIR, complaint & spot magazar and spot sketch, was not a parking place; 

(ii) that according to the High court, the driver of the lorry ought to have parked the vehicle on the left side of the road by giving proper indication/signal, but it was not done; and 

(iii) that as per the finding of the High court, the accident occurred at about 4.30 A.M. when the lighting should have been poor.

Thus, the view expressed by the High Court to the effect that if the driver of the car had been vigilant and driving the vehicle carefully following the traffic rules, the accident would not have happened, was presumptuous and not based on any evidence, added the Top Court. 

The Division Bench found that there was nothing on record to indicate that the driver of the car was not driving at moderate speed nor that he did not follow traffic rules. Whereas, on the contrary, the High Court held that if the lorry had not been parked on the highway, the accident would not have happened even if the car was driven at a high speed. 

Further, the Bench noted that the Tribunal had merely allowed 10% as additional weightage, for the reason that the deceased had a bright future. 

However, as held by this Court in case of Pranay Sethi(supra), the appellants were entitled to an addition of 50% towards future prospects, added the Bench.  

Therefore, the Apex Court modified the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated June 5, 2015, granting, to the appellants a total compensation of Rs.50,89,960.

Add a Comment