The principle of contributory negligence cannot be applied to passengers for the driver's negligence, and deductions from compensation based on such principles are unjustified.

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 21172 of 2021 Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 1023 of 2022 Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 21248 of 2021 Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 337 of 2022

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-claimants have preferred these appeals being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 7th April, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in MAC appeals1 filed by the appellant-claimants and respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Limited (for short the ‘Insurer’) under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’). The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeals in the following manner: -

“ORDER

1. Miscellaneous First Appeals filed by both the Insurance Company and the Claimants are disposed of;

2. The modified compensation in all the appeals is as follows:

3. Insurance company shall satisfy the award within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

4. Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal;

5. The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, for disbursement to the claimants.”

1 In Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 102776, 102549, 102775, 102546, 102773, 102547,

102777 & 102550 of 2016 and 100204 of 2017.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the present appeals are that on 18th August, 2013, a car bearing registration No. MH-09/BX-4073 (for short ‘the car’) collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck bearing registration No. MH-09/CA- 0389 (for short ‘the offending truck’) which was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights. The collision resulted into the death of the passengers of the car, namely, Sunita, Ashtavinayak Patil, Deepali and the driver Saiprasad Karande at the spot. One of the passengers, namely, Smt. Sushma (wife of deceased- Ashtavinayak Patil) survived the accident, however, sustaining grievous injuries. The car was insured by respondent No. 4-IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short the ‘Insurance Company’), whereas, the offending truck was insured by respondent No.2-Insurer.

4. The injured Smt. Sushma and the legal heirs of the deceased occupants of the car filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’) claiming compensation from the owner of offending truck i.e. respondent No. 1 and the insurer of the offending truck i.e. respondent No.2-Insurer. No relief was sought by the claimants against the owner and the insurer of the car. The claimants alleged that since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without switching on the parking lights or indicators or without taking any other precautionary measures to warn the incoming traffic, the person in control of the said vehicle was fully responsible for the accident.

5. The Tribunal, while deciding the claims held that it was a case of contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal observed that the driver of the car had contributed to the accident because he failed to take appropriate preventive measures so as to avoid collision with the offending truck which was parked in the middle of the road.

6. As the appellant-claimants had not claimed compensation from owner of the car, i.e., respondent No.3-Shri Vasant Ravan Jadhawar and respondent No.4-Insurance Company of the car, these respondents were exonerated and the claims against them were dismissed.

7. The Tribunal computed the compensation as below: -