SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Ker) 911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
HAREESH. T.A. - APPELLANT
Vs.
SANTHOSHKUMAR & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
M.A.C.A.Nos.1856 & 1947 of 2011
Decided on : 11-08-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
SRI. SHEJI P. ABRAHAM, SRI. O.K. MURALEEDHARAN
SRI. A.A. ZIYAD RAHMAN, SRI. P. JAYASANKAR, SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR

The absence of a driving license does not automatically imply negligence in causing an accident.

Headnote:

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Negligence - Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh & Ors. [AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2405], Prajesh Kumar vs. Saji John and Others [2009 (1) KHC 26]

Fact of the Case:

The claimants in two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal challenged the common award passed in the claim petitions. The accident occurred due to the collision of a motorcycle with an autorickshaw. The Tribunal found the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 negligent to the extent of 40% and reduced the compensation payable to the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1947 of 2011 proportionately.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal's finding of negligence on the part of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was vacated. The appellants were granted further compensation. The claimants were entitled to interest for the whole amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum.

Issues: Contributory negligence, quantum of compensation, interest rate for compensation

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh & Ors. and Prajesh Kumar vs. Saji John and Others to establish that the absence of a driving license does not automatically imply negligence in causing an accident. The court also revised the compensation amounts based on the claimants' injuries and loss of earnings.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part, and the claimants were granted further compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Judgment

The claimants in two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are challenging in these appeals the common award passed in the claim petitions.

2. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was the rider and the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1947 of 2011 was the pillion rider of a motor cycle respectively. The accident occurred on account of the collision of the said motorcycle with the autorikshaw owned and driven by the first respondent. The second respondent is the insurer of the autorickshaw. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent contested the claim petition, contending, among others, that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the second respondent in part and found that the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was negligent to the extent of 40% in causing the accident. Though the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1947 of 2011 was not found responsible for the accident, the Tribunal had reduced the compensation payable to him also proportionately on that basis. As far as the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 is concerned, the Tribunal passed an award in his favour directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.19,595/- by way of compensation, after holding that the just compensation due to him is Rs.32,660/-. Likewise, as far as the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1947 of 2011 is concerned, the Tribunal passed an award directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.28,010/- by way of compensation, after holding that the just compensation due to him is Rs.46,680/-. The appellants are aggrieved by the said decisions of the Tribunal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the second respondent, the insurer of the vehicle.

4. As far as the contributory negligence aspect is concerned, the case set up by second respondent is that the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was not holding a licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore, the negligence on his part is to be presumed. Though the second respondent had raised a contention that it is on account of the negligence of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 that the accident had occurred, no evidence was let in by the second respondent in support of the said contention. Instead, they attempted to sustain the said contention solely based on the fact that the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was not holding a licence. In Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh & Ors. [AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2405], the Apex Court held that merely for the reason that a person who was driving a vehicle was not having a driving licence, it cannot be presumed that he is negligent in causing the accident. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment reads thus:-

"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 which was being driven 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.

A similar view has been taken by this Court in Prajesh Kumar vs. Saji John and Others [2009 (1) KHC 26]. In the light of the above decisions, in the absence of any independent evidence on the side of the second respondent to establish that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011, I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the negligence of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 also contributed to the cause of the accident is unsustainable.

5. Coming





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top