IMPORTANT POINT
Contributory negligence – On a Highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has responsibility to give warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on road.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2022, whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident case from Rs. 73,29,653/-to Rs.58,53,447/-.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On 07.01.2017, when the appellant was riding on a motorcycle along with his friend on the pillion, respondent no.2 suddenly applied the brakes of his car, which was ahead of the appellant’s motorcycle, and the appellant dashed his motorcycle into the rear side of the car and fell on the right side of the road. The bus coming from behind drove over the appellant, which finally led to the accident resulting in the amputation of appellant’s left leg during treatment. The car and the bus were insured by respondent no.3 and respondent no.1, respectively.

(b) The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) seeking compensation of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- in which Tribunal calculated a compensation of Rs.91,62,066/-. However, since it was held that there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, Rs.73,29,653/- were made payable to the appellant by respondent no.1 (insurer of bus). The car insurer was exonerated from all liabilities.

(c) Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, both the respondent no.1 (insurer of bus) and the appellant approached the High Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.1 by reducing the attendant’s charges from Rs.18 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and by fixing liability of car driver, bus driver and the appellant as 40%, 30% and 30% respectively. The cross-objection filed by appellant was also partly allowed by granting him Rs. 5 lacs under the head of future medical expenses. Consequently, the High Court reduced the payable compensation from Rs. 73,29,653/- to Rs. 58,53,447/- along with interest. Now, the appellant is before us.

4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5. First on the question of contributory negligence of the appellant and negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have affirmed that the accident occurred due to the sudden stoppage of the car. However, it was the view of the Tribunal that if the bus had not been involved in the accident, the appellant would have suffered normal injuries, and it was mainly the negligence of the bus driver that led to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Tribunal also relied on Rule 23¹[Distance from vehicles in front: The Driver of a Motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.] of the Road Regulation Rules 1989 and put contributory negligence of 20% on the appellant for not maintaining a sufficient distance from the car. The Tribunal had exonerated the car driver and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. In appeal, the High Court has rightly held that since the genesis of the accident was the sudden braking of the car, the car driver should also be made liable. The High Court held the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40% and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30% contributory negligence.

6. The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, car driver is not liable. On the other hand, the car driver has admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is