Deceased Can’t Be Held Negligent Merely Because He Was Riding Tripling; Contributory Negligence Can’t Be Presumed: Gujarat High Court
The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellants – original claimants and first opponent – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Gujarat High Court has held that contributory negligence cannot be presumed and the deceased cannot be held negligent merely because he was riding tripling.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellants – original claimants and first opponent – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar held, “In absence of any material proving contributory negligence of the deceased merely the deceased was riding tripling is not a ground to hold the deceased negligent. The contributory negligence cannot be presumed and collision on the road did not inherently indicate the negligence by the driver but negligence must be proved by the evidence with preponderance of probabilities as standard, in this regard reference is required to be drawn to the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors…”
Advocate Monal S Chaglani represented the Appellant, while Advocate Esha S. Bhavsar represented the Defendant.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2019, when the deceased/motorcyclist, along with his sister and niece, were proceeding on a motorcycle when they were hit from the opposite side by a bus driven at full speed. As a result of this, the deceased and his sister sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them, whereas the niece sustained injuries. Therefore, the appellants – claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a Petition seeking compensation, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Tribunal had considered 10% contributory negligence of the deceased, and the chargesheet was filed against the driver of the bus. In the cross-examination of the driver of the bus, it appeared that due to a handcart of watermelon, he drove the bus and collided with the motorcycle, which was coming from the opposite direction. Both vehicles collided, and the accident occurred.
Referring to Kumari Kiran Vs Sajjan Singh and Ors. (2014), the Bench noted that the vehicle coming from the opposite side was not a ground to hold the motorcyclist negligent. Reference was also made to the judgment in Mohammed Siddique & Anr., vs National Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors.(2020) wherein it has been held that merely the deceased was riding the motorcycle is not itself without any evidence to hold him liable for contributory negligence but there must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim.
The Bench also observed, “Merely tripling ride is not a ground in absence of such tripling has caused or contributed the alleged accident and due to such tripling the motorcyclist had lost the control over steering of the motorcycle or due to rash and negligent driving he has contributed the alleged accident. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts in absence of any material or evidence or causal connection between the violation and the accident such type of presumption is not permissible. Accordingly, the Tribunal has committed error in holding 10% contributory negligence of the deceased.”
The Bench thus modified the order qua 10% contributory negligence of the deceased and held that the driver of the bus was solely negligent in the occurrence of the accident.
The Bench was of the view that in the absence of any evidence of the salary, the Tribunal had not committed any error in considering the minimum wages of the year 2019 and computing Rs 9,000 as the monthly income of the deceased. However, the Bench held that the Tribunal had committed an error by not awarding loss of consortium to the claimants. The Bench held that the appellants – original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to Rs 48,400 each towards loss of consortium.
The Bench thus held, “In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded final compensation of Rs.12,51,720/- (after deducting 10% own negligence), however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,42,180/- (Rs.14,93,900/- - Rs.12,51,720/-) (including additional amount of Rs.1,03,100/- plus Rs.1,39,080/- amount deducted for 10% negligence of the deceased which is set aside by this Court), with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.”
The Bench thus partly allowed the appeal with no order as to costs. The Bench further asked the respondent – GSRTC to deposit the said additional amount of Rs 2,42,180 along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
Cause Title: Legal Heirs and Dependents of Decd. Mayurbhai Jesingbhai Dhuda Minaben Jesingbhai Dhuda v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:71322)