Yesterday, On 19th September, The Supreme Court ruled that contributory negligence cannot be vicariously attributed to passengers to reduce their compensation. In this case, a truck parked in the middle of the road without taking necessary precautions, such as turning on parking lights or using other safety measures. The court emphasized that the negligence of the driver cannot be transferred to the passengers, thereby safeguarding their right to full compensation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed that contributory negligence on the part of a driver involved in an accident cannot be vicariously attributed to passengers to reduce the compensation awarded to them or their legal heirs.
The ruling came from a bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta, who were reviewing a 2013 case in which four people, including the driver, died and a woman was injured when their car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck that had been abandoned on a highway.
Read Also: Orissa High Court Criticizes Cuttack Police and DMET Over Medical Negligence Case
In this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found both drivers to be negligent and ordered a 50 percent reduction in compensation, as the legal heirs of the victims and the injured had not sought compensation from the car’s owner or insurer. The Karnataka High Court upheld this view in a 2021 ruling.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts’ decision to hold the car’s driver partially responsible for the accident and reduce the compensation for the claimants.
The bench stated,
“The courts below uniformly applied the principle of contributory negligence while directing a deduction from the compensation awarded to the respective appellant-claimants… The contributory negligence of the driver of the car was vicariously applied to the passengers, which is prima facie illegal and impermissible.”
Citing its earlier judgment in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that,
“contributory negligence on the part of a driver involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attributed to passengers to reduce their compensation or that of their legal heirs.”
The Court then evaluated whether the lower courts justified in attributing partial liability to the car’s driver based on contributory negligence. It found that the accident occurred because the 14-wheeler truck was abandoned in the middle of the road without proper precautionary measures, such as turning on parking lights or placing warning signals.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the accident occurred on a night when the road would have been pitch dark, as there was no evidence of street lighting at the collision site, making it nearly impossible for the oncoming vehicle to spot the stationary truck in time.
The Court further clarified,
“There is no doubt that at the time of the accident, the conditions on the road would have been pitch dark, making it virtually impossible for the incoming vehicles to sight the stationary offending truck within a reasonable distance.”
It added that if the accident occurred during the daytime or in well-lit conditions, the car driver might have been held equally responsible for the incident.
The Supreme Court stated,
“Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of applicable rules and regulations, the burden to prove that its placement was beyond human control and that proper precautionary measures were taken rests on the person in control of the offending truck.”
The Court further reasoned that it would be unreasonable to expect the driver of a vehicle, traveling on a highway in pitch-dark conditions at night, to spot a stationary truck in the middle of the road in time to apply the brakes and avoid a collision.
It added,
“The situation would be compounded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles, making it even more difficult to see the stationary truck.”
Read Also: Bombay High Court Summons Authorities Over Medical Negligence at Yerwada Prison
The Court criticized the lower courts’ conclusion that the car’s driver could have averted the accident by braking and was thus equally negligent, stating that this conclusion was “ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained.”
In its final judgment, the Court ruled that the truck’s controller solely responsible for the accident, overturning the 50 percent reduction in compensation.