1. Road accident involving a motorcycle and a truck — Claim for compensation — Dispute over the apportionment of contributory negligence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 948
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Geeta Mandal – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21110 of 2024)
Decided On : 09-05-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence from 50% to 10% for the deceased, attributing 90% negligence to the offending vehicle, based on reassessment of accident circumstances.
Subject
Civil Law - Negligence
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Contributory Negligence - Appeal regarding reduction of compensation due to finding of 50% contributory negligence by the deceased and 50% by the offending vehicle affirmed by both the MACT and High Court - Supreme Court found 50% contributory negligence unjustified and modified it to 10% for the deceased and 90% for the offending vehicle. (Paras 2-7)
(B) Appeal - Scope and limit of judicial review - The court considered the evidentiary materials and altered the negligence attribution based on the assessment of the accident's circumstances. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, dependent of the deceased who died in a motorcycle accident, disputed the MACT's finding of contributory negligence. The deceased was 27 years old and the accident occurred on 27th December 2015.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the contributing negligence by the deceased was appropriately assessed at 10%, while the offending vehicle bore 90% responsibility for the accident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the MACT and High Court’s finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the earlier findings of negligence were disproportionate and not supported by evidence, leading them to reassess the distribution of liability in the accident.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; contributory negligence modified.
(B) Appeal - Scope and limit of judicial review - The court considered the evidentiary materials and altered the negligence attribution based on the assessment of the accident's circumstances. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, dependent of the deceased who died in a motorcycle accident, disputed the MACT's finding of contributory negligence. The deceased was 27 years old and the accident occurred on 27th December 2015.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the contributing negligence by the deceased was appropriately assessed at 10%, while the offending vehicle bore 90% responsibility for the accident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the MACT and High Court’s finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the earlier findings of negligence were disproportionate and not supported by evidence, leading them to reassess the distribution of liability in the accident.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; contributory negligence modified.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Arindam Sen, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. Ms. Sweta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Arindam Sen, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. Ms. Sweta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the finding of fifty percent contributory negligence attributed to the deceased and the resulting deduction from the compensation amount. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Analysis of the spot map and vehicle movement angles near the road center indicates that fifty percent contributory negligence is unjustified. (Para 5 )
4. Apportionment of contributory negligence must be based on the actual movement and positioning of vehicles as evidenced by the spot map. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Finding of contributory negligence modified from fifty percent to ten percent with directions to pay the differential compensation amount. (Para 7 )
6. How is contributory negligence determined in road accident claims?
The court determines contributory negligence by analyzing material evidence, such as the spot map and the angle of movement of the vehicles involved, to assess the relative fault of the parties. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Can a finding of contributory negligence be modified if the initial apportionment is deemed unjustified?
Yes, if the evidence suggests that the initial apportionment of negligence is unjustified, the court can modify the percentage of contributory negligence to reflect a more accurate distribution of fault. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
ORDER
1) Leave granted.
2) On the short point of recording the finding of contributory negligence of 50% of the deceased and 50% of the offending vehicle by the MACT [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati], affirmed by the High Court [Gauhati High Court], the present appeal has been filed by the mother (dependent) of Mr. Rajesh Mandal who died in a road accident.
3) The facts involved in the present appeal are that on 27.12.2015 at about 10.20 p.m., Mr. Rajesh Mandal (deceased), aged 27 years, riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-01-AN-4529 met with an accident with truck bearing registration No. BR-30-B-3439 and succumbed to the injuries.
4) The MACT allowed the compensation as Rs.65,01,948/- holding the deceased negligent and to have contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% and the remaining 50% to the offending vehicle. The High Court confirmed the finding of contributing negligence and the amount of compensation. It is only on the point of contributory negligence and resultant 50% deduction from the compensation amount as held by the MACT, confirmed by the High Court, which is questioned in this appeal.
5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the spot map. As per the spot map, it is clear that the offending vehicle, that is, truck bearing registration No. BR-30-B-3439 was coming from the northern side towards southern side, while the deceased was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01-AN-4529 from southern to northern side. Looking to the angle of movement made by both the vehicles, which is quite near to the middle of the road, it appears that the finding of contributory negligence of 50% of the deceased as recorded is unjustified.
6) On going through the facts of the case and on perusal of the material placed, in our view, the negligence of the deceased may be right; however, the contribution in accident may be maximum to the extent of 10% and that of the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. BR-30-B-3439 would be of 90%.
7) Accordingly, we modify the finding of MACT and the High Court on the issue of contributory negligence of the deceased from 50% to 10%. In view of the foregoing and with the aforesaid modification on the issue of contributory negligence of the deceased to 10%, the differential amount of compensation as determined by the MACT and the High Court be paid to the claimant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8) In the above terms, the civil appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
