Supreme Court: Tractor's Insurer Liable For Death Of Passenger In Trailer Due To Tractor's Negligence in motor accident claim petition

 Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailerbeen stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specificallyinsured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, asduring the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. {Para 11}

12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in thesame chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindfulof the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2135 OF 2023]

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED Vs  SMT. HONNAMMA & ORS.

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 625.

Dated: MAY 05, 2025

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