Sudden Braking Without Warning Amounts to Negligence by Car Driver in Road Accidents, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on July 29, 2025, held that a car driver who abruptly applies brakes on a highway without giving a signal or warning can be held liable for negligence. The court apportioned responsibility among the car driver, bus driver, and the injured motorcyclist, and restored as well as enhanced the compensation previously awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar held the car driver to be 50 percent liable for the 2017 accident. The bench observed that sudden braking without indication on a high-speed highway, where vehicles are expected to travel at considerable speeds, amounts to clear negligence. The injured motorcyclist, S Mohammed Hakkim, was held 20 percent contributorily negligent. The bus driver, whose vehicle ran over the motorcyclist after the collision, was held 30 percent liable.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Hakkim, challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to reduce his compensation from Rs 73.29 lakh to Rs 58.53 lakh. The High Court had also revised the liability ratio, holding Hakkim 30 percent liable, and the car and bus drivers 40 percent and 30 percent liable respectively. Reversing the High Court’s modifications, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s findings and increased the compensation to Rs 91.39 lakh. The bench based this enhancement on a realistic evaluation of Hakkim’s future needs, loss of earnings, and permanent disability due to the accident which resulted in the amputation of his entire left leg from the waist.

Referring to Rule 23 of the Road Regulation Rules, 1989, which mandates that drivers maintain sufficient distance and drive with caution, the bench upheld the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence on the part of Hakkim. However, it clarified that the primary cause of the accident was the sudden and unindicated halt by the car driver. The bench stated that on a highway, vehicles move at high speeds and any intention to stop must be preceded by appropriate signaling or warning to trailing vehicles. The car driver had admitted that he braked suddenly because his pregnant wife experienced a vomiting sensation. The court rejected this explanation, holding it unreasonable in the context of highway safety. The court further noted that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any precautionary steps before halting. This failure to warn or signal was identified as the root cause of the collision, which subsequently led to the bus running over the appellant.

The incident occurred on January 7, 2017. Hakkim, then a 20-year-old third-year engineering student, was riding his motorcycle with a pillion rider. As the car in front of him suddenly stopped, his bike collided with it. He fell to the right side of the road and was run over by a bus, leading to the severe injury and eventual amputation of his leg. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs 91.62 lakh, which was reduced to Rs 73.29 lakh after accounting for 20 percent contributory negligence. On appeal by the insurers and the appellant, the High Court altered the liability ratios and reduced the compensation. The Supreme Court reinstated the original liability findings and further enhanced the compensation considering future implications of the injury.

The bench revised the notional income of the appellant from Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000 per month, taking into account his academic background and career potential. It also restored Rs 18 lakh as attendant charges, which the High Court had reduced to Rs 5 lakh without providing sufficient reasoning. The court observed that given the extent of amputation, the appellant would require lifelong assistance with basic tasks. The reduction in attendant charges was deemed unjustified. Additionally, compensation for loss of marital prospects was increased from Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh, as the injury had significantly impacted the appellant’s chances of marriage and companionship. The court directed that the total compensation of Rs 91.39 lakh would carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

As both the car and the bus were insured at the time of the accident, the court directed that 50 percent of the awarded compensation be paid by the car insurer, and 30 percent by the bus insurer. The remaining 20 percent would be deducted due to contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The court ordered the insurers to release the payment within four weeks from the date of the order.

This judgment reinforces the duty of care required from all road users, particularly on highways, and sets clear liability norms in cases of sudden braking without warning.

Case Title: S Mohammed Hakkim Vs National Insurance Co Ltd & Ors

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2025

Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar