Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Aravind Kumar, Supreme Court
If Driver Intends To Stop Vehicle On Highway He Has To Give Signal To Others: Supreme Court In Motor Accident Compensation Claim Matter
|The appellant had approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned order whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation in a motor accident case.
While granting compensation of over Rs 91 lakh to an engineering student who suffered amputation of his leg in a motor accident, the Supreme Court has held that on a highway, if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road.
The appellant had approached the Apex Court challenging the impugned order whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from Rs. 73,29,653 to Rs 58,53,447.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar held, “On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road. In the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution. Both Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver was also negligent. After considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively.”
Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan represented the Appellant while AOR Amit Kumar Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to 2017 when the appellant was riding a motorcycle, along with his friend on the pillion. The second respondent suddenly applied the brakes of his car, which was ahead of the appellant’s motorcycle, and the appellant dashed his motorcycle into the rear side of the car and fell on the right side of the road. The bus coming from behind drove over the appellant, which led to the accident resulting in the amputation of the appellant’s left leg during treatment. The car and the bus were insured by the third and first respondents.
The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 1,16,00,000, in which the Tribunal calculated a compensation of Rs 91,62,066. However, since it was held that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, Rs. 73,29,653were made payable to the appellant by the first respondent (insurer of bus). The car insurer was exonerated from all liabilities. In appeal of the bus insurer, the High Court reduced the attendant’s charges from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 5 lakh and fixed the liability of the car driver, the bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively. The cross-objection filed by the appellant was partly allowed but the payable compensation was reduced. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench first dealt with the issue of contributory negligence of the appellant and negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal was of the view that if the bus had not been involved in the accident, the appellant would have suffered normal injuries, and it was mainly the negligence of the bus driver that led to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Bench asserted that in the appeal, the High Court had rightly held that since the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the car, the car driver should also be made liable. The High Court held the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40% and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30% contributory negligence.
The car insurer had taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, the car driver was not liable. On the other hand, the car driver had admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. “In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct. But at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver”, it said.
The Bench thus stated that the appellant was liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver were liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Bench considered the fact that at the time of the accident, the appellant was a 3rd year engineering student who could have had a bright future. Referring to its judgment in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh (2020), the Court took the notional income of the appellant as Rs 20,000. The amount of compensation under the head of attendant charges and loss of marital prospect was also increased.
The appellant was thus held liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 20% and Rs 91,39,253 was awarded as compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Further stating that the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by the insurers, the Bench ordered, “The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.”
Cause Title: S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 905)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan, AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Advocates Gokulakrisnan Sr, Nawaz Sherif, Vishal Sinha, Manoj Kumar A
Respondent: AOR Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates K Enatoli Sema, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shantha Devi Raman, AOR Garvesh Kabra