Contributory Negligence Will Be Equal When Deceased Car Driver Didn’t Take Sufficient Care While Undertaking & Lorry Was Not Being Driven At Normal Speed: Supreme Court
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the claimants against an order determining the contributory negligence of the deceased driver of the car at 70%.
Determining the deceased car driver's negligence at 50%, the Supreme Court awarded half the amount of compensation to the claimants and explained that neither the car driver took sufficient care while undertaking the lorry nor the lorry was being driven at a normal speed.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the claimants from an order of the High Court, determining the contributory negligence of the deceased driver of the car, whose death was sought to be compensated at 70%.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “The fact remains that there was a collision, and that the car was dragged to a distance of 20 feet after the collision, clearly indicating rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver. We are hence inclined to find that the contributory negligence on the drivers will be equal, since there is fault on the part of the car driver in not taking sufficient care when overtaking, while the impact could have been avoided or gravity lessened, if the lorry had been driven in normal speed. Hence, apportionment of liability can be fixed at 50% for each.”
Factual Background
The accident was a head-on collision of a car driven by the husband of the claimant with a lorry, resulting in the instant death of the car driver. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased driver, mainly relying on the FIR, which was registered against the deceased driver and the final report filed, closing the case, as the accused was no more. The claimants were awarded only an amount of Rs 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The High Court found, on a reading of the rough sketch produced, that both drivers were negligent. While the deceased was overtaking a vehicle, the lorry coming from the opposite side was also driven rashly and negligently. The High Court, hence, found contributory negligence and fixed the liability of negligence on the driver of the lorry at 30%.
Reasoning
The Bench mentioned the fact that the crime was registered against the deceased driver of the car, but on the first information supplied by the driver of the lorry. “Obviously, no reliance can be placed on such FIR to find negligence on the driver of the car. The police also caried out no investigation and closed the case as one in which the accused is no more”, it said.
On the issue of negligence of both the drivers, the Bench noticed that the High Court had referred to the statement of the wife of the deceased car driver stating that the accident occurred while her husband was driving the car, trying to overtake a lorry and it dashed against the lorry coming from the opposite side. The Bench noted that she was neither present at the scene of the occurrence, nor travelling in the car with her husband. “The statement of PW-1 was based on an information given to her by an eyewitness. In addition, to the fact that no reliance can be placed on a statement under Section 161, Cr.PC, the eyewitness who gave such information to PW-1 was also not examined”, it said.
The Bench held that negligence in the present case could only be found from the attendant circumstances. The High Court noticed that the sketch prepared would indicate that the car driven by the deceased was overtaking a lorry. After the collision, the car was dragged to a distance of 20 feet, making it clear that the lorry was driven at a high speed.
Finding the contributory negligence on the drivers to be equal, the Bench fixed the apportionment of liability at 50% for each. The Bench granted the wife, the two minor children and the mother, Rs 40,000 each for loss of consortium. Under the conventional head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, a further sum of Rs 15,000 each was granted.
“Considering the fact that 50% negligence is found on the deceased, the claimants will be entitled to half of the compensation computed which will be Rs.36,38,750”, it ordered while allowing the appeal.
Cause Title: Smt. M. Sabitha & Ors. v. Brahma Swamulu & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 601)