Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the driver of a vehicle which hit a lorry stationed idle on the middle of a road cannot be held liable for contributory negligence for the purpose of grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's order of April 24, 2018 which set aside the order by Virajpet's MACT.

The tribunal held the appellants entitled to a compensation of Rs 12,32,144 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order till its realisation. 

However, the said amount was directed to be paid in half by the owner and driver of the lorry which was standing idle in the middle of the road, and the other half by the Insurance Company with which the jeep, on which the deceased was travelling was insured.

The responsibility on the basis of contributory negligence was apportioned also on the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling.

In the appeal, the court examined whether the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was traveling is sustainable or not.

"Having considered the matter, in the facts of the case, where it is not in dispute that the lorry was standing in the middle of the road on which it was not supposed to be stationed at midnight and the jeep in question came from behind hitting the same, resulting in the death of the deceased, we do not find that the driver of the said jeep could have been in any way held to be responsible, either fully or partially so as to come under the definition of being liable for contributory negligence in matters where claim is filed seeking compensation for injury or death resulting from such accident," the bench said.

The counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'Archit Saini and Another vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors' (2018).

The counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the jeep in question submitted that the liability was on the lorry which was static and thus no recovery is liable to be made from them and 50% has rightly been saddled on the owner and driver of the lorry.

However, he submitted that at least, the Insurance Company may be given the right to recover it from the lorry owner because it was 100% due to the negligence of the lorry which was lying idle on a moving road in the middle.

After hearing the counsel of the parties, the bench said, the court having arrived at the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in question does not seem to be proper and is, accordingly, set aside.

"Thus, the entire amount would be paid to the appellants by the respondent Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed. It is left open for the respondent Insurance Company to recover the amount, in accordance with law, from the owner/driver of the lorry," the bench said.