Negligence remains a foundational principle in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, with the extent of evidence required evolving with societal standards.

JUDGMENT

R.Basant, J.

The insurer is the appellant. The claimants are the parents of an unmarried young man aged about 28 years who succumbed to injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 28/2/2006.

2. The challenge primarily directed against the finding on the question of negligence. It, therefore, is necessary for us to briefly advert to the nature of the accident. The road lies north south. It has a total width of 9 metres. The imaginary mid line must hence run at a distance of 4.5 metres from either kerb. The deceased was riding a motor cycle, in front of him there was a lorry proceeding forward ( hereafter referred to Lorry No.1). The appellant is the insurer in respect of that lorry. Another lorry (referred to as lorry No.2 hereafter) was coming on the opposite direction, i.e. from south towards north. The appellant is the insurer in respect of that lorry also. The deceased was M.A.C.A.2348/2010 2 killed when the 2nd lorry allegedly crossed the imaginary mid line proceeded east ward and knocked down the deceased at a distance of 2.74 metres west of the eastern kerb. On these findings, the Tribunal held the driver of the second lorry liable substantially for the accident.

3. Before the impact occurred between lorry No.2 and the motor cycle of the deceased, there was another incident, the motor cycle had hit on the rear of lorry No.1 which was proceeding in front. It is thereafter that the fatal impact took place between lorry No.2 and the motor cycle.

4. In the course of investigation, the police found the drivers of both lorries 1 and 2 to be culpably negligent. Final report was filed by the police after such investigation raising allegations of culpable negligence against the drivers of both lorries(Lorry Nos.1 and 2). The question of apportioning the liability between the drivers of lorry Nos.1 and 2 is not very crucial of significant now as the same insurer has insured both the vehicles. Therefore, it is not necessary to embark on a venture to identify whether the driver of lorry No.1 was in any way liable. That aspect is not substantially relevant in the facts M.A.C.A.2348/2010 3 of the case now.

5. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available came to the conclusion that the responsibility for the accident must at least to a minimal extent be placed at the doors of the deceased rider. The Tribunal hence found that the deceased had contributed to the extent of 10% by his own negligence. It was thus that the Tribunal found that the driver, owner and insurer of lorry No.2 was liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the extent of 90% for their loss.

6. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants have advanced detailed arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding that 90% of the blame for the accident can be placed at the doors of the driver of lorry No.2 (or together at the doors of driver of lorry Nos.1 or 2) is not sound, fair and reasonable. The Tribunal which found the rider also guilty of contributory negligence must certainly have found the deceased rider to be more responsible for the accident - at any rate above 10% as fixed by the Tribunal.

M.A.C.A.2348/2010 4

7. Before the Tribunal in addition to the police documents which shows that both drivers of lorry Nos.1 and 2 were found to be culpably negligent, there was also the scene mahazar marked as Ext.A2 as also the inspection report by the Motor Vehicle Inspector of all the three vehicles (marked as Exts.A3 to A5). The claimants did not want to leave anything to chance. They examined PW3, an eye witness to the occurrence in support of their assertion that the deceased was not negligent and the accident had taken place only because of the fault of others, i.e. the drivers of lorry Nos.1 and 2. Of course, PW3, in the course of his evidence had admitted that if the deceased were more careful, he could have avoided the accident, i.e. the fi