Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident – Contributory negligence – Collision of car with the offending vehicle on the busy road causing death of driver and one person and injuring two others – Tribunal relied on the evidence of eye-witness (PW-7) that the offending vehicle, the Gas Tanker was parked in the middle of road without any indicator or parking lights and it was a sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Gas Tanker – High Court modified the award on the finding that it was a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the claimants-injured were entitled to only 50% of total compensation – Held: High Court did not doubt the evidence of PW-7 as being unreliable nor did it discard his version that the driver of the car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker due to the flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the front side – The site plan did not support the finding that the Gas Tanker was not parked in the middle of the road – The fact that PW-7 who was standing on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about
70 feet, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the road would not discredit his version that the car coming from the opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the front side – It is not in dispute that the road is a busy road – The approach of the High Court in reversing the well considered finding recorded by the Tribunal on the material fact, which was supported by the evidence on record, cannot be countenanced – The appellants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation as determined by the High Court in its entirety without any deduction towards contributory negligence. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that the nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable doubts. The Tribunal applied the correct test in the analysis of the evidence before it. Notably, the High Court has not doubted the evidence of PW-7 as being unreliable nor has it discarded his version that the driver of the car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker due to the flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. Further, the Tribunal also adverted to the legal presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road. The Site Plan reinforces the version of PW-7 that the Truck (Gas Tanker) was parked in the middle of the road but the High Court opined to the contrary without assigning any reason whatsoever. The Site Plan filed along with the charge-sheet does not support the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker was not parked in the middle of the road. The fact that PW-7 who was standing on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about
70 feet, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the road does not discredit his version that the Maruti Car coming from the opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. It is not in dispute that the road is a busy road. In the cross-examination, neither has any attempt been made to discredit the version of PW-7 nor has any suggestion been made that no vehicle with flash lights on was coming from the opposite direction of the parked Gas Tanker at the relevant time. The approach of the High Court in reversing the well considered finding recorded by the Tribunal on the material fact, which was supported by the evidence on record, cannot be countenanced. The appellants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation as determined by the High Court in its entirety without any deduction towards contributory negligence. The direction given by the High Court regarding deduction of 50% of the total compensation awarded to the claimants towards contributory negligence is set aside. [Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11] [633-G-H; 634-A-G; 635-C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.