Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – A car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck which was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights – The collision resulted into the death of the passengers of the car and the driver – Only one passenger-S survived – The injured S and the legal heirs of the deceased occupants of the car filed separate claim petitions – The Tribunal directed reduction of the compensation awarded by 50% on account of contributory negligence by driver of the car – The High Court approved the Tribunal observation with respect to contributory negligence – Correctness: Held: On a holistic analysis of the material available on record, it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic – This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law – The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high – In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision – The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult – Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained – As a consequence, the deduction of 50% of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants on account of contributory negligence, as directed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, cannot be sustained. [Paras 40, 42]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Mother of the deceased-Ashtavinayak Patil Smt. Sushma, wife of the deceased-Ashtavinayak Patil (respondent No. 5 in the present appeals). 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.