The Supreme Court Thursday reiterated that contributory negligence on the part of the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident, cannot be vicariously attributed to passengers to reduce the compensation awarded to them or their legal heirs [Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Ranglore and Others].

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a case in which four persons including the driver of car had died and a woman was injured in 2013 when their vehicle collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck left abandoned in the middle of a highway.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), while holding it to be a case of contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles, had directed reduction of the compensation by 50 percent since the legal heirs of victims and the injured person had not claimed compensation from the car owner and the vehicle's insurer.

The Karnataka High Court in 2021 gave a concurrent view on the aspect.

However, the top court disagreed with the decision to hold the car's driver also responsible for the accident and reduce the compensation of the claimants.

"The Courts below uniformly applied the principle of contributory negligence while directing deduction from the compensation awarded to the respective appellant-claimants, i.e. the dependents of passengers and the injured as well as the dependents of the driver-Saiprasad Karande @ 50%. Thus, the contributory negligence of the driver of the car was vicariously applied to the passengers which is prima facie illegal and impermissible," it said.

In this regard, the Bench relied upon top court's earlier decision in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd to hold that "contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be."

The Court then proceeded to analyse whether the Courts below were justified in fastening partial liability on the driver of the car on the basis of contributory negligence in causing the accident.

It found the truck had been been parked in the middle of the road without taking due care and caution to switch on the parking lights or to put in place any other precautionary measures to warn the vehicles travelling on the highway in the dead of the night.

"The accident took place on 18th August, 2013 which as per the Hindu calendar fell on Shukla Paksha Dwadashi, and thus, there was not even a remote possibility that the road would be illuminated by moonlight at the time of the accident. The discussion of evidence by the Tribunal and the High Court makes no reference to availability of streetlights at the collision site and hence, there is no doubt that at the time of the accident, the conditions on the road would have been pitch dark making it virtually impossible for the incoming vehicles to sight the stationary offending truck within a reasonable distance," it said.

The Court then examined the legal provisions and said they leave no room for doubt that the person in control of the offending truck acted in sheer violation of law while abandoning the vehicle in the middle of the road without taking precautionary measures.

It added that had the accident taken place during the daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated, then perhaps the car driver could have been held equally responsible for the accident.

"Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of the applicable rules and regulations, the burden to prove that the placement of the said vehicle as such was beyond human control and that appropriate precautionary measures taken while leaving the vehicle in that position were essentially on the person in control of the offending truck," the Court said.

Thus, the Court opined that it would imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision.

"The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained," said the Court.

In conclusion, the Court held that the person in control of the truck was solely responsible for the accident and resultantly set aside the reduction of the compensation by 50 percent.

[Read Judgment]