The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation in a case of motor accident after noting that no case of contributory negligence was made out. The Apex Court also observed that the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature.

The Apex Court was considering a challenge to the common order whereby the Punjab and Haryana High Court had partially upheld the order passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (MACT) to the extent of the application of the principle of contributory negligence.

On the argument that the site plan of the said accident was not placed before the MACT and was brought on record before the Apex court for the first time, the Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said, “The objection raised on behalf of respondent no. 6 to the production of site plan at this stage is in our view without merit. It must be kept in mind that the provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependents in accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature. Hence, the site plan is taken on record by allowing the appellant to file additional document.”

AOR Manju Jetley represented the Appellants while Advocate Jagdish Chandra represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2009, when a newly purchased motorcycle (insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited- Respondent) was being driven by the deceased Gautam, who happened to be a bachelor aged around 22 years (son of claimants-appellants). He was riding with his brother-in-law, deceased Harpal Singh (his dependents are appellants 3, 4 & 5). While they were going on the main road, a head-on collision took place between the Alto car and the motorcycle, leading to the death of both the motorcyclists and injuries to one Kulwinder Singh, who was in the car. The owner and driver of the car died after some time due to another reason.

Two Petitions were filed by the petitioners before the MACT, and the Tribunal opined that the accident in question was a clear-cut case of contributory negligence. The dependents of deceased Gautam were held entitled to Rs. 86,000. Similarly, the dependents of deceased Harpal Singh were held entitled to Rs. 2,23,000 . Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of MACT, the appellants preferred an appeal claiming enhancement of the compensation amount.

The High Court vide the impugned common order partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the dependants of deceased Gautam and Harpal Singh by assessing the total compensation of Rs 5,52,000 in case of deceased Gautam and Rs. 6,91,200 in case of deceased Harpal Singh. The appellants approached the Apex Court challenging the said Order.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the MACT had held that the accident in question was a case of contributory negligence, relying solely upon the testimony of Kulwinder Singh (PW5), who deposed that the accident took place in the middle of the road. The said finding was upheld by the High Court in the impugned order. “However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same deserves to be set aside as the High Court has committed a serious error in not considering the testimony of PW-4 Suresh Kumar who was also one of the eyewitnesses apart from PW-5 Kulwinder Singh”, the Bench said.

Referring to the site plan, the Bench noted that the deceased Gautam was riding his motorcycle on his left side of the road when the Alto Car hit him. The site plan also corroborated the testimony of eyewitness PW4, complainant Suresh. “Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh only, driver of Alto car and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased Gautam”, it held.

“In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the High Court has erred in upholding the application of the principle of contributory negligence and thereby deducting the amount of compensation entitled to the deceased persons by 50%”, it said while enhancing the compensation.

Allowing the appeals, the Bench awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs 9,84,000 [Rs. 5,52,000 (compensation calculated by the High Court) + Rs. 4,32,000 (Compensation deducted by High Court on account of contributory negligence) in favour of deceased Gautam. Furthermore, the total amount of compensation to which deceased Harpal was entitled was computed at Rs 12,62,400 [Rs. 6,91,200 (compensation calculated by the High Court) + Rs. 5,71,200 (Compensation deducted by High Court on account of contributory negligence).

Cause Title: Rajo Devi & Anr. Etc. v. Manjeet Kaur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 741)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Manju Jetley

Respondent: Advocate Jagdish Chandra, AOR Niteen Kumar Sinha, Advocates Aishwarya Sinha, Salil Paul, AOR Manjeet Chawla, Advocate Sahil Paul

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice BV NagarathnaJustice Prasanna B. Varale

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.