Supreme Court: Scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle positions cannot be used to infer contributory negligence against smaller vehicles.

 The following principles can be laid out from the above judgments:

A. Charge Sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence.

B. Criminal acquittals do not displace this prima facie civil liability.

C. Scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle positions cannot be used to infer contributory negligence against smaller vehicles.

{Para 21}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 10755-10758 of 2026

Decided On: 19.08.2026

Reena Vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: S.V. Bhatti, J.

Citation:  2026 INSC 889,MANU/SC/0910/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Explains that Acquittal In Criminal Case Per Se Won't Prove Lack Of Negligence in Motor Accident Claim

We preface a few of the well-established precedents in the adjudication of Motor Vehicle Accident claims:

A. Police investigation records, including the FIR and final Charge-Sheet, constitute valid, admissible, and reliable prima facie evidence to establish rash and negligent driving in MACT proceedings. Further, a subsequent acquittal in a criminal case does not affect the assessment of tortious liability under the MV Act.1

B. Criminal proceedings and civil MACT Claim Petitions operate in entirely distinct legal realms, as the degree of "culpable rashness" required Under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") is significantly higher than civil negligence under the law of torts. The findings, quashment, or acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome of MACT proceedings, which must be evaluated independently on civil standards.2

C. A site map or accident sketch cannot be read in isolation or used as the sole basis to record contributory negligence against a deceased driver in the absence of corroborating ocular evidence. Furthermore, the non-examination of all potential witnesses is not fatal to a claim if the existing record adequately establishes negligence.3

D. The spot where a lighter vehicle is found lying on a site map post-accident cannot be assumed to be the spot where the collision occurred, nor that it was being driven on the wrong side, as a collision with a heavy, speeding vehicle naturally pushes or drags the smaller vehicle forward. The Charge Sheet points towards prima facie driver complicity, and site maps alone cannot establish contributory negligence without direct contra evidence.4

E. Motor accident Claim Petitions Under Section 166 of the MV Act must be adjudicated on the touchstone of "preponderance of probability" rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further, Under Section 173 of the MV Act, the Appellate Court is required to carefully marshal all oral and documentary evidence before reversing a reasoned MACT award.5 {Para 20}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 10755-10758 of 2026

Decided On: 19.08.2026

Reena Vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: S.V. Bhatti, J.

Citation:  2026 INSC 889,MANU/SC/0910/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Motor accident claim tribunal can presume Contributory Negligence Without Direct Or Corroborative Evidence?

 We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar,came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle. {Para 10}

11. Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and Ors.(2015) 1 SCC 339. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3465-3466 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.21450-21451/2023)

PRABHAVATHI & ORS. Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN, TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Coram: SANJAY KAROL; J., PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; J.

February 28, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 293.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Motor accident claim tribunal can held deceased liable for contributory negligence if driver of offending vehicle fails to examine himself?

Firstly, with regard to the negligence, as held, a perusal of the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') itself would indicate the manner in which the accident had occurred and as rightly observed both by the MACT as well as by the High Court, the accident having taken place during the month of December after it was dark, certainly, the visibility would be poor. In that circumstance, when it was a case where the truck (offending vehicle) was parked on middle of the road and the deceased had not noticed it as there was no clear indication or signal, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he could notice the vehicle (the truck) only when he had approached the same. {Para 3}

4. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that the conclusion, as reached, both by the MACT and the High Court that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50% is not justified. Furthermore, when there was no explanation on the part of the driver of the truck by examining him with regard to the manner in which the accident had occurred, we are of the opinion that the entire negligence is to be fastened on the driver of the truck (the offending vehicle).

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5420 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30423/2019)

Decided On: 25.08.2023

Laxmi Devi and Ors. Vs. Mehboob Ali and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1382/2023.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether a person can be held liable in motor accident for contributory negligence or rash and negligent driving if he was attempting to overtake a vehicle?

 In the attending facts and circumstances, merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record. Further, it is the claimant-Appellant(s) who lost a member of their family. Not only was the claimant-Appellant, Prem Lal Anand doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. That apart, it has also been proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against the Appellant No. 1 was erroneous and unjustified. Consequently, compensation awarded on this count has to be revised. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 8503-8504 of 2024.

Decided On: 07.08.2024

Prem Lal Anand and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0845/2024,2024 INSC 585.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Compensation granted on account of death of passenger can not be reduced if there was contributory negligence of driver in which deceased was travelling?

In the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,   MANU/SC/1357/1997 : 1997:INSC:705 : (1997) 8 SCC 683 this Court dealt with the question whether the driver's negligence in any manner vicariously attaches to the passengers of the motor vehicle of which he was the driver, and it was held as below:

10. There is a well-known principle in the law of torts called the "doctrine of identification" or "imputation". It is to the effect that the Defendant can plead the contributory negligence of the Plaintiff or of an employee of the Plaintiff where the employee is acting in the course of employment. But, it has been also held in Mills v. Armstrong [(1888) 13 AC 1, HL] (also called The Bernina case) that that principle is not applicable to a passenger in a vehicle in the sense that the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the passenger is travelling, cannot be imputed to the passenger. This principle has been applied, in latter cases, to passengers travelling in a motor vehicle whose driver is found guilty of contributory negligence. In other words, the principle of contributory negligence is confined to the actual negligence of the Plaintiff or of his agents. There cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a "right of control" of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger. A passenger is not treated as a backseat driver. (Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Ed., 1984, pp. 521-22.) It is therefore clear that even if the driver of the passenger vehicle was negligent, the Railways, if its negligence was otherwise proved - could not plead contributory negligence on the part of the passengers of the vehicle.  {Para 18}

19. It is clear from the ratio of the above judgment that the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be.

39. We are of the view that the aforesaid decision applies to the case at hand on all fours and thus, the Appellant-claimants cannot be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car, namely Saiprasad Karande (deceased), was jointly responsible for the accident with the person in control of the offending truck and hence, their claims should be reduced on the principle of contributory negligence.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024 

Decided On: 19.09.2024

Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 706,MANU/SC/1032/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Where both the parents were dependent on the deceased, a deduction to the extent of 1/3rd will also be appropriate in motor accident claim petition

 Normally, a deduction to the extent of 50% can be made. However, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. MANU/SC/1012/2018 : (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where both the parents were dependent on the deceased, a deduction to the extent of 1/3rd will also be appropriate. This means that the compensation towards dependency would come to ` 9,07,188/-. {Para 14}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

First Appeal No. 120 of 2012

Decided On: 10.01.2022

Damodar Volvoikar and Ors. Vs. West Coast Marketing and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0082/2022, 2023 ACJ 82.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances, contributory negligence of deceased in motor accident is not made out?

 This is a case where the evidence on record establishes that the accident took place on account of rash and negligence on the part of the drivers of the pickup and the minibus, without there being any contribution from the deceased Gajanan. Significantly, the driver of the minibus was not examined in this matter. Though, the owner and driver of the pickup were examined. The owner of the pickup admittedly was not present at the spot and, therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into account for determining the issue of negligence. The evidence driver of the pick-up Joao Dias RW2 has been quite vague and did not explain why he stopped abruptly or swerved to the center of the road. He denied the dash but this aspect stands amply established by the other evidence on record. Mr. Netravalkar's contention across the bar about potholes on the road cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to even suggest the same. {Para 8}

9. Mr. Netravalkar, relied on Rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1949, to submit that the deceased was required to maintain sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid a collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. He also relied on the decision of Nishan Singh & Ors. V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager & Ors. MANU/SC/0463/2018 : 2018 SAR (Civil) 870 to submit that the thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. In the state of the evidence on record, there is no warrant to conclude that the deceased had not maintained any sufficient distance. There is no explanation forthcoming from the pick driver as to why he was required to stop abruptly or to come in the middle of the road. In the absence of such an explanation, there is no case made out to sustain the conclusion of contributory negligence, particularly, since such conclusion is not backed by assessment or analysis of the evidence on record.

10. Thus, in this case, the appellants have established that the accident in which their 26-year-old son Gajanan died took place on account of the negligence of the drivers of the pickup and the minibus. There is no evidence that the deceased contributed to this accident. The decision in Nishan Singh (supra), therefore, does not assist the Insurance Company.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

First Appeal No. 120 of 2012

Decided On: 10.01.2022

Damodar Volvoikar and Ors. Vs. West Coast Marketing and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0082/2022, 2023 ACJ 82.

Print Page

How to appreciate pleading and evidence in motor accident claim petition regarding contributory negligence?

Admittedly, the accident involving Maruti OMNI van bearing registration no. MH-12-P-1503 and the motorbike bearing registration no. MH-16-W-7297 took place on 24.05.2007 on Beed-Ahmednagar road. As a result of the injuries suffered in the said accident, the motorbike rider, Mohan, passed away. On due investigation of the crime, the driver of the Maruti OMNI van was prosecuted. True, he appears to have been acquitted of the charge. It needs no mention that in a criminal case, the charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case, rash or negligence may be proved on preponderance of probabilities. The owner and the driver of Maruti OMNI van did not file their written statement in the petition before the Tribunal. As such, the averments in the claim petition went unchallenged. The respondent - insurance company, in its first breath, claimed ignorance about the manner in which the accident took place. It has further been averred in paragraph 11 of the written statement as under:-

"11. ……………………………. It transpires that accident occurred in middle portion of Highway road and it is clear cut head on collision in between motorbike and Maruti OMNI van. Therefore, deceased contributes the accident and while granting compensation point of this contributory negligence is necessary to be considered whether it may not be equal, but some extent towards motorcycle driver." {Para 7}

8. The respondent - insurance company came with a case of it being a contributory negligence. Thus, it is surprising, as to how the Tribunal could come to the conclusion of it being a case of exclusive negligence or rashness on the part of deceased - Mohan. The impugned judgment is solely based on the scene of accident panchnama. The Investigating officer appears to have not drawn a sketch or map of the site. The contents of the panchnama describes the situation at the situs. The same was drawn a few hours after the accident. It is a common knowledge that due to speed of vehicles involved in the accident and as a result of the impact, the vehicles leave the place whereat collision takes place. In the first part of the site plan, it has specifically been mentioned that the accident took place at the middle of the road. The respondent - insurance company does not dispute the said fact. In view of the same, the Tribunal ought not to have traveled beyond the pleadings and admitted position of the contents of the site plan. Further, the description of the site appearing in the panchnama, is necessarily the development or the effect of accident. It is reiterated that no eye witness has been examined in the case. It is, therefore, not known as to how the accident took place. From the police papers and the averments in the written statement of the respondent-insurance company, the only conclusion that could be drawn, is the case of being contributory negligence. Since the accident took place at the middle of the road, this Court is inclined to hold both the deceased Mohan and the driver of Maruti OMNI van to be equally responsible for the accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are, therefore, set aside.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 4404 of 2008

Decided On: 06.09.2021

Sangita and Ors. Vs. Kalidas and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/2577/2021,(2022) ACJ 1272.

Print Page

Under which circumstance the MACT can infer that deceased was liable for contributory negligence if he did not wear helmet at the time of accident?

 At the same time, major portion of the contribution to the accident is on the part of the deceased. This is more so that the deceased did not wear helmet at the time of accident. Further, on the date of accident, the deceased was a minor and not in possession of a driving licence to drive the two wheeler. Therefore, it is appropriate to fix 25% liability on the part of driver of the car and 75% on the part of the deceased himself.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 272 of 2020

Decided On: 01.06.2021

Panneerselvam and Ors. Vs. I Two Distribution and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Subbiah and S. Kannammal, JJ.

Author: R. Subbiah, J.

Citation:  MANU/TN/4019/2021,AIRONLINE 2021 MAD 1016,2022 AAC 305 (MAD).

Print Page

Bombay HC denies contributory negligence of car driver whose car dashed trailer with no parking or tail lights...

In my view, the offending trailer was proceeding ahead of the Maruti car of the deceased. The said trailer was not having break lights and tale lamps. The spot panchnama discloses that, there was no brake light or tale lamp to the trailer. Had there been the tale lamps or break lights, the deceased could have noticed that trailer is going to stop. The accident occurred around 8.30 p.m., there was dark, without tale lights or break lights it was not possible for the deceased to see the status of the offending trailer. Moreover, to prove the negligence of the deceased, the driver of the offending trailer did not stepped into witness box. Driving 70 feet long trailer without any break light or tale lamps is a grievous negligence, but these facts are not considered by the Tribunal and has fixed 50% contributory negligence on the deceased, which is erroneous. Hence, I hold that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending trailer. {Para 8}

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Shivkumar Dige, J.)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mangal Ravindra Divate and Others.

First Appeal No. 939 of 2023 and Cross Objection (St) No. 28149 of 2022

Decided on March 12, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 916.

Print Page

Supreme Court: No contributory negligence on the part of deceased if truck trailer was parked on the road at night without any reflectors

The MACT then discussed the evidence of the driver of the truck trailer, NAW 1. After analysing the evidence of the driver, the MACT held that his evidence did not inspire confidence, when he stated that indicators on the truck trailer had been lit. On the contrary, the eye-witness, AW 2, in the course of his cross-examination, denied the existence of reflectors at the spot. The MACT noted that it did not appear that the truck trailer had been parked outside the area of the pakka road. In spite of its analysis in the above terms, the MACT surmised that if the lights of the motorcycle were lit, the deceased would have been able to avoid the accident. This part of the reasoning of the MACT is purely a matter of surmise. Once the substantive evidence before the MACT established that the truck trailer had been parked on the road at night without any reflectors, we are of the view that there was no reason or justification for the MACT to proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of contributory negligence. We find from the judgment of the High Court that this aspect has not been discussed at all and the High Court simply proceeded to confirm the finding of contributory negligence. Consequently, on the first limb of the submission, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant is correct and the submission requires to be accepted.

{Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9343 of 2019 

Decided On: 11.12.2019

Jumani Begam Vs. Ram Narayan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation: (2020) 5 SCC 807,MANU/SC/1784/2019.

Print Page

Whether Burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents?

 It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident.  {Para 17}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

First Appeal From Order No. 1726 of 2001

Decided On: 04.08.2023

U.P.S.R.T.C. Ghaziabad Vs. Neerja Bhatiya and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Citation:  MANU/UP/2024/2023,2023:AHC:158461.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment on contributory negligence and composite negligence in motor accident

The Tribunal assumed that the extent of negligence of the appellant and the first respondent is fifty:fifty because it was a case of composite negligence. The Tribunal, we find, fell into a common error committed by several Tribunals, in proceeding on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory negligence are the same. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned. {Para 5}

6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2008.

Decided On: 01.02.2008

T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J. and R.V. Raveendran, J.

Author:K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.

Citation: 2008 ACJ 1165 SC,MANU/SC/7181/2008.

Print Page

Whether Biker is Liable For Contributory Negligence If Parking Lights Of Stationary Vehicle Against Which He Dashed At Night Were Off?

 I am unable to understand findings given by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the deceased when it has come on record that, no tail lamps or the indicators of offending tempo were put on or no proper precautions were taken by the driver of the offending tempo, to give signal to the other vehicles to show that, the offending tempo was stationed on the road.

{Para 9}

10. After the incident of accident Mohini Salunke, CW-1, widow of deceased and CW-3 Govind Suryawanshi have seen the place of accident while going to Civil Hospital, Latur where deceased was admitted after accident. They noticed that, offending tempo was stationed in the middle of road and its tail lamp or indicators were not on. It has come in the evidence of CW-4 Laxman Jadhav who runs Dhabha by name ‘Kaushik’ near the place of accident, that after hearing sound he went to the accident spot. He found that deceased was lying on the road and stationary offending tempo. He further stated that, indicators or tail lamp of the offending tempo were not on. It was stationed in the middle of the road. From the evidence of three witnesses it reveals that, offending tempo was stationed in the middle of road. No tail lamp or indicators of offending tempo were on.

11. It is signifcant to note that, driver of the offending tempo has not examined any witness to prove that, he had put on the tail lamp or indicators of the offending tempo. Latur Ambejogai road is highway. The accident is happened at 10:00 p.m. when offending tempo was stationed in middle of the road. It was duty of the driver of the offending tempo to put indicators or parking light of the offending tempo in on condition, so other vehicles could know about stationed tempo but it has come on record that, no such precautions were taken by driver of the offending tempo. When any vehicle stationed on the road at night time, as per Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 proper precautions are necessary to be taken. It reads thus:

[109. Parking light :

[[Every construction equipment vehicle, combine harvester and motor vehicle] and every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white or amber parking light on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road:

Provided that these rear lamps can be the same as the rear lamps referred to in rule 105 sub-rule (2):

[Provided also that construction equipment vehicles [and combined harvesters], which are installed with food light lamps or sport lights at the front, rear or side of the vehicle for their off–highway or construction operations, shall have separate control for such lamps or lights and these shall be permanently switched off when the vehicle is travelling on the road.]

This rule states that, front and rear parking lights shall remain lit when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road.

12. It has come on record that, no such parking lights were put on the offending tempo, so liability of contributory accident cannot be fastened on the deceased by holding that, he should have seen the stationed tempo under the headlight of motorcycle. When there is specifc rule in respect of taking precautions by stationary vehicle, if such precautions are not taken by the driver/owner of stationary vehicle then liability cannot be shifted on motorcycle rider. Hence, I am setting aside the observations of the Tribunal that, there was 50% contributory negligence of the deceased in the said accident and I am holding that, driver of the offending tempo is sole responsible for the occurred accident.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2022; 

Mohini Mohanrao Salunke Vs Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav

Coram: S.G. DIGE, J.

Dated: 18th October, 2022

Print Page

Can the court reduce the liability of the driver of the vehicle for payment of compensation in a motor accident case considering his police statement?

After going through the judgment in detail as also the

documents produced by the learned advocate for the appellant

by a separate compilation, it emerges that the copy of chargesheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle – Truck and the fact that he is prosecuted in the Court of law, if at all, chargesheet is filed against the driver, his own statement recorded in the said criminal case would never form a part of charge-sheet as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that statement of the driver, which is read by the learned advocate for the appellant is forming part of the charge-sheet. Over and above that, even considering the same, in absence of driver being

examined before the Tribunal, the evidence led before it with

regard to sole negligence of the driver cannot be disputed by the

Insurance Company. If at all, the alleged accident took place in

the manner in which it is argued before the Court, no one has

prevented the Insurance Company to examine the driver of the

offending vehicle before the Tribunal so that claimants could

have cross-examined him to support their assertion in the claim

petition.

After examining the evidence led before it, the Tribunal has

correctly concluded in paragraph No.11 holding the driver of

offending vehicle -Truck to be solely responsible and negligent in

driving it, which caused the death of the deceased.

Neither from the statement nor from the judgment,

Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant could make out a

case for interference on the ground of attributing any

contributory negligence to the deceased and therefore, there is

no substance in this appeal as it is the sole point raised to assail

the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the appeal is

liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 57 of 2022

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Vs ASHABEN VIKRAMBHAI CHAUHAN

CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

Date : 08/03/2022

Print Page

Supreme Court: Pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law, but by itself cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence.

But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194-C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW-3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.

14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2020 

Decided On: 08.01.2020

Mohammed Siddique  Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 57

Print Page

What is difference between contributory negligence and composite negligence?

 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2008 

Decided On: 01.02.2008

 T.O. Anthony Vs.  Karvarnan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J. and R.V. Raveendran, J.

Citation: (2008) 3 SCC 748

Print Page

Whether a person can be held guilty for contributory negligence if he drives vehicle without driving license?

 If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the Appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence...

10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.

9. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis. Accordingly, we direct that the Appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 4.60 lakhs which was wrongly disallowed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 22966 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27398 of 2016)

Decided On: 15.12.2017

 Dinesh Kumar J. Vs.  National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 1 SCC 750

Print Page

What is distinction between composite negligence and contributory negligence?

There is a distinction between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors (Supra) has inter-alia held in paragraph 15 of the Judgment as under:

"15. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan has held that in case of contributory negligence, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoers separately. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 999 of 2012 and Cross Objection (ST.) No. 30505 of 2012

Decided On: 05.05.2016

 National Insurance Company Ltd.  Vs. Chaitali Samir Parekh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and C.V. Bhadang, JJ.

Citation: 2017 (2) ALLMR 387

Print Page