The Supreme Court ruled that a sudden brake on a highway without warning amounts to negligence, slamming the accused and awarding Rs 91 lakh compensation to the injured youth.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India held that sudden braking by a car driver without any warning or indication on a highway amounts to negligence. The Court restored and enhanced the compensation for a young engineering student whose leg was amputated following a horrific accident caused by such negligence.
Background
The incident dates back to January 7, 2017, when S. Mohammed Hakkim, then a 20-year-old third-year engineering student, was riding his motorcycle with a pillion rider. A car in front of him, without any signal or prior warning, suddenly stopped, causing Hakkim to crash into its rear. As a result of the fall, he landed on the highway and was run over by a bus coming from behind, leading to the amputation of his left leg from the waist down.
Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 91.62 lakhs as compensation, reducing it to Rs 73.29 lakhs after accounting for 20% contributory negligence on Hakkim’s part. On appeal, the Madras High Court drastically revised the liability distribution and further reduced the compensation to Rs 58.53 lakhs. Dissatisfied, Hakkim moved to the Supreme Court, which has now delivered a landmark verdict in his favor.
Observations by the Supreme Court
The apex court held that the car driver’s action of suddenly applying brakes without any signal on a highway constituted primary negligence. The driver’s justification, that his pregnant wife felt nauseous, was rejected as unreasonable in the context of highway driving, where vehicles are expected to travel at considerable speeds.
“Stopping without warning on a highway is a clear breach of duty to other road users,”
the bench noted.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court revised the apportionment of liability, holding the car driver 50% negligent, the bus driver 30% negligent, and the appellant, S. Mohammed Hakkim, 20% contributorily negligent for failing to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead.
This revision overturned the High Court’s allocation, which had earlier attributed greater negligence to the appellant. The apex court emphasized that the primary responsibility lay with the car driver for abruptly halting on a highway without any signal or warning, thereby setting off the chain of events leading to the accident.
The bus driver’s failure to avoid running over the appellant added to the liability, but the appellant’s fault was limited to not adhering to the safe distance rule under the Road Regulation Rules, 1989.
In assessing compensation, the Supreme Court adopted a realistic and progressive approach, grounded in established legal precedents. The Court revised the notional monthly income of the appellant from Rs 15,000, as determined by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, to Rs 20,000, taking into account his status as a third-year engineering student with promising future prospects.
Applying a 40% enhancement for future prospects and a multiplier of 18 (as laid down in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi), the Court calculated the loss of future income at Rs 60.48 lakhs. It also restored the attendant charges to Rs 18 lakhs, which the High Court had arbitrarily reduced to Rs 5 lakhs, emphasizing the appellant’s lifelong need for assistance due to the amputation of his entire left leg.
Furthermore, the Court enhanced the compensation for loss of marital prospects from Rs 2.5 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs, acknowledging the significant impact on the appellant’s chances of marriage and companionship. Other heads of compensation, including pain and suffering, medical expenses, and future medical costs, were also maintained or fairly adjusted. The total compensation thus stood at Rs 1,14,24,066, which, after deducting 20% for contributory negligence, amounted to Rs 91,39,253. This sum is to carry an interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Since both the car and the bus involved in the accident were insured, the Court directed the car insurer to bear 50%, the bus insurer 30%, while the remaining 20% was to be borne by the appellant as his contributory share. The Court ordered that the entire compensation amount be released to the appellant within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Case Title: S Mohammed Hakkim Vs National Insurance Co Ltd & Ors
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 28062-63 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Road Accidents
