Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14413
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
The Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
A.Sasikumar – Respondent
Contributory negligence is determined based on the causal relationship to the accident, not merely on safety regulation violations.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accidents - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 149, 168 - This judgment analyzed the contributory negligence principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, highlighting the weight of evidence in attributing fault and not reducing compensation based solely on non-compliance with safety regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was involved in an accident caused by a bus belonging to the appellant, leading to grievous injuries. The Tribunal awarded a compensation but fixed 80% liability on the bus driver, citing contributory negligence of the claimant for not wearing a helmet and lacking a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision of 80% contributory negligence on the appellant due to the driver’s rashness, while only 20% was attributed to the claimant, emphasizing the absence of direct contribution to the accident by the claimant.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal correctly attributed 80% contributory negligence to the appellant, and if the claimant's lack of a helmet and license was sufficient to warrant any percentage of liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court followed the consistent view that failure to wear a helmet or lack of a driving license does not automatically imply contributory negligence unless these factors directly contribute to the accident's cause.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's award and the contributory negligence allocation.
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the fixation of contributory negligence of 80% on the appellant/Transport Corporation by the Tribunal, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
2. On 15.05.2015 at about 16.15 hours, when the respondent/claimant was travelling in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 51 Q 3307, he was hit by a TNSTC bus bearing Reg.No.TN 68 N 0541, which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact, the respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Hence, the claimant made a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.
3. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,89,098/- towards compensation to the respondent/claimant. The Tribunal, however, fixed 80% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, while 20% on the part of the injured.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, based on the evidence of eye witness, viz., PW1 and RW1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Reg.No.TN 68 N 0541, was the main cause for the accident and accordingly, fastened 80% liability on the part of appellant/Transport Corporation. However, fastened 20% liability on the part of the rider of the two wheeler, for the reasons, viz., that the injured was not wearing helmet; not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and also the rider of the two wheeler drove the vehicle along with two pillion riders. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the findings rendered by the Tribunal in fixing 80% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, is on the higher side. Hence, he seeks appropriate modification in favour of the appellant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records.
6. On perusal of the records and after analysing evidence of eye witness PW1 and RW1 and on considering the fact that the FIR was registered against the driver of the appellant bus, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the main cause for the accident is only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/bus bearing Reg.No.TN 68 N 0541. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 80% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant bus and 20% against the injured for mere reasons that the rider of the two wheeler drove the vehicle along with two pillion riders without wearing helmet and without having valid licence. This Court, time and again, has consistently taken a view, that when the accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and in such case, no contributory negligence could be fastened against the injured for merely not wearing the helmet and not having valid driving licence, unless and otherwise, the rider of the two wheeler directly contributed to the cause for the accident by his rash and and negligent driving. Since no appeal has been preferred by the claimant, this Court is constrained to confirm the award passed by the Tribunal. However, the claimant is at liberty to agitate his grievance as regards the contributory negligence fixed on his part in accordance in law.
7. Accordingly, the Civil appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.5323 of 2016 on the file of Special Sub Judge-2, Small Causes Court, Chennai. Upon such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the entire amount to the bank account of the appellants, by way of RTGS, within a period of three weeks from the deposit or from the
