Motor Accident Claim | Vicarious application of contributory negligence of car driver to the passengers, to reduce compensation is illegal: SC

Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal revolving around a contentious finding whereby, the car driver, was held jointly responsible for causing the accident along with the driver/owner of the offending truck leading to the claims of the appellant & dependents of the deceased-passengers being deducted by 50% on the principle of contributory negligence; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the finding was perverse in law. The Court further held that finding of the MACT and Karnataka High Court, which reduced the claims of the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured, other than the legal heirs of the driver, was also invalid in the eyes of law.

The Court further found that the contributory negligence of the car driver was vicariously applied to the passengers to reduce the compensation, which is prima facie illegal and impermissible.

Background and Legal Trajectory:

In August 2013, a car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer 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, including the driver, on the spot. The appellant survived sustaining grievous injuries.

The appellant and legal heirs of the deceased occupants of the car filed separate claim petitions claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending truck. No relief was sought by the claimants against the owner and the insurer of the car.

The MACT held that it was a case of contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles. It was observed that the car driver had contributed to the accident because he failed to take appropriate preventive measures to avoid collision with the offending truck which was parked in the middle of the road. The MACT held the owner and insurer of the offending truck, to be jointly and severally responsible to indemnify the claims of the appellant and claimants, and at the same time directed reduction of the compensation awarded by 50% on account of contributory negligence.

Aggrieved with the afore-stated decision, the appellant-claimants approached the Karnataka High Court. The Division Bench of the Court applied the ‘rule of last opportunity’ and held that had the driver of the car been cautious, he could have avoided the accident. The High Court approved MACT’s observation with respect to contributory negligence and modified the compensation.

Hence, the appellant-claimants preferred the instant appeals by primarily aggrieved by the deduction of the compensation awarded to them on account of contributory negligence.

Court’s Assessment:

Perusing the facts of the case, the Court noted that the core issue involved in the appeals centers around the deduction of 50% compensation awardable to the appellant-claimants, who have assailed the concurrent findings of MACT and Karnataka High Court on the aspect of contributory negligence whereby, the deceased driver of the car, was held jointly responsible for causing the collision.

The Court took note of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 8 SCC 683, wherein it was held that, “The principle of contributory negligence is confined to the actual negligence of the plaintiff or of his agents. There is no rule that the driver (…) on the one hand and the passengers on the other hand are to be “identified” so as to fasten the latter with any liability for the former’s contributory negligence. There cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a “right of control” of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger. A passenger is not treated as a backseat driver”.

Relying on the afore-stated ruling, the Court pointed out 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.

Holding that the High Court and MACT committed gross error in law while reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants, being the dependents of the deceased-passengers as their claims cannot be truncated by attaching the vicarious liability with the driver. However, the claim of the dependents of the deceased driver would stand on a different footing.

Deliberating over whether the High Court and MACT were justified in fastening partial liability on the driver of the car on the basis of contributory negligence in causing the accident; the Court delved into the events of the day when the accident took place.

It was noted that 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. The offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the highway 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 traversing the highway. “Common sense requires that no vehicle can be left parked and unattended in the middle of the road as it would definitely be a traffic hazard posing risk to the other road users”.

The Court also took note of the statutory scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vis-a-vis signals on vehicles; abandonment of vehicles in public place etc. The Court also noted Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 providing that every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users; stating that it casts a duty on the drivers of a motor vehicle stating that the vehicle shall not be parked at or near a road crossing or in a main road.

It was noted that provisions in the 1988 Act and 1989 Regulations 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 and that too without taking precautionary measures like switching on the parking lights, reflectors or any other appropriate steps to warn the other vehicles travelling on the highway. “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 by applying the rule of last opportunity. But the fact remains that there was no illumination at the accident site either natural or artificial”.

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 were taken while leaving the vehicle in that position, was essentially on the person in control of the offending truck. “However, no evidence was led by the person having control over the said truck in this regard. Thus, the entire responsibility for the negligence leading to the accident was of the truck owner/driver”.

Therefore, the Court held that the High Court and MACT’s view that if the driver of the car had been vigilant and would have driven the vehicle carefully by following the traffic rules, the accident may have been avoided, is presumptuous on the face of the record as the same is based purely on conjectures and surmises. “The High Court recorded an incongruous finding that if the offending truck had not been parked on the highway, the accident would not have happened even if the car was being driven at a very high speed. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court on the issue of contributory negligence is riddled with inherent contradictions and is paradoxical”.

The Court further held that the High Court and MACT erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.

Thus, the appellant-claimants cannot be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car, was jointly responsible for the accident with the person in control of the offending truck and hence, their claims should be reduced on the principle of contributory negligence.

Decision:

The Court, therefore, held that the person in control of the offending truck was fully responsible for the negligence leading to the accident.

Consequently, the deduction of 50% of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants on account of contributory negligence, as directed by MACT and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The finding on this issue was reversed as being perverse and unsustainable in the facts and law.

It was directed that there shall be no deduction from the compensation payable to the appellant-claimants who shall be entitled to the full compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court by the impugned judgment.