Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the 50% deduction for contributory negligence from motor accident compensation where a car hit a 14-wheeler truck abandoned at night in the middle of an unlit highway without parking lights or warnings, holding that the truck's driver/owner was wholly responsible and that, in any event, a driver's negligence cannot be imputed to passengers to reduce their compensation.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent finding that the car driver was equally negligent, applying the rule of last opportunity, was perverse so as to justify interference under Article 136.
- Whether the contributory negligence of a car driver can be vicariously attributed to the passengers or their legal heirs to reduce their compensation.
- Whether the apportionment of compensation between the mother and the widow of a deceased passenger should be altered because the widow remarried after the claim was decided.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings of fact are interfered with sparingly, only when perverse, based on no evidence or a misreading of evidence, or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice; the contributory-negligence finding met that threshold. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 40)
- Section 2(34), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988A highway or road is a 'public place' as defined, attracting the duties on vehicles left at rest. (¶ 27)
- Sections 121, 122, 126 and 127(2), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Read together as prohibiting a vehicle from being abandoned or left at rest in a public place so as to cause danger or obstruction, and providing for removal of hazardous abandoned vehicles; the person in control of the truck violated these duties. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 33)
- Regulation 15, Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989Requires parking so as not to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience and bars parking on a main road; leaving the truck in the middle of the highway breached it. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- Sections 166 and 173(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Noted as the provisions under which the claim petitions and the appeals to the High Court were filed. (¶¶ 2, 4, 9)
Held
- Contributory negligence of the driver of a vehicle cannot be vicariously attached to its passengers to reduce the compensation awarded to them or their legal heirs, following Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; reducing the claims of the injured passenger and the dependants of the deceased passengers was a gross error of law, though the claim of the deceased driver's dependants stands on a different footing. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- A vehicle abandoned in the middle of a highway, without parking lights, reflectors or other warnings, in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules of the Road Regulations, places on the person in control of it the burden of proving that its position was beyond human control and that proper precautions were taken; no such evidence was led, so the entire responsibility lay with the truck owner/driver. (¶¶ 25, 33, 41)
- The rule of last opportunity could not be applied against the car driver where the collision occurred at night with no natural or artificial illumination at the site; the High Court's view that a vigilant driver could have avoided the accident rested on conjecture, there being no evidence of excessive speed or breach of traffic rules, and its reasoning was internally contradictory. (¶¶ 23, 33, 34, 40)
- To establish contributory negligence, some act or omission that materially contributed to the accident must be attributed to the person charged; failure to avoid a collision by taking an extraordinary precaution is not itself negligence, and a person placed in sudden danger by another's negligence is not contributorily negligent for not choosing the best way out. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., involving a vehicle parked in the middle of a road without lights, applied on all fours; the concurrent finding of contributory negligence was perverse and warranted interference under Article 136. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
- The mother of a deceased passenger's plea to alter the apportionment because the widow had remarried after the claim was decided was declined, but both were held entitled to full compensation without deduction. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49)
Result
Main appeals allowed: no deduction for contributory negligence; claimants entitled to full compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court, payable by the truck's insurer jointly and severally with its owner. Connected appeals on apportionment disposed of without disturbing the apportionment. No costs.