Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that merely because a person attempts to overtake a vehicle, it cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol rejected the findings of contributory negligence and enhanced the compensation to Rs 11.25 lakh as against Rs 1,01,250 awarded to the appellant Prem Lal Anand and others.

The court noted the primary ground on which compensation got truncated, was the finding of contributory negligence by the Tribunal, which said that the responsibility for the accident could be apportioned to both the claimant-appellants and the respondent at 50% each.

The claimant-appellant No 1 along with his wife aged about 45 years were travelling by motorcycle and as they were crossing village Mehrauli, on their way to Noida to visit a friend, they were faced with two rashly and speedily driven tractors resulting into an accident, with the claimant sustaining several injuries including a broken jaw and fractures in his leg. 

Unfortunately, claimant-appellant’s wife died on the spot, as a result of the impact of the accident.

The claimant-appellant and his deceased wife were engaged in business jointly earning Rs 5,000 from their business concern, namely, M/s Sonali Fabrics. It was contended that due to the sudden death of the wife of the deceased, the entire business, which was earning profits, for example, Rs 60,000 in the year 1994 and Rsb50,000 in 1993, the income therefrom was lost.

Hence, the claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim for Rs 12,00,000 before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The court noted that the record revealed that driver of the tractor No UP 14-A 1933 had maintained slow speed, prompting the claimant-appellant No 1 to overtake, but, however, the driver of the another tractor bearing No UP 14-B 9603 was rash and negligent in his act, inasmuch as, not only did he overspeed, but also came from the wrong side, resulting in the collusion. 

"In the attending facts and circumstances, merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record," the bench said.

Further, it is the claimant-appellants who lost a member of their family, the court noted. 

"Not only was the claimant-appellant, Prem Lal Anand doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. That apart, it has also been proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant No 1 was erroneous and unjustified," the bench said.

Consequently, the bench held that compensation awarded on this count had to be revised.

The court ordered that the claimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs 11,25,000 instead of Rs 1,01,250 as awarded by the Tribunal, as compensation.

It also clarified that the other directions of the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed except that the rate of interest would be 8% instead of 12%.

Case Title: Prem Lal Anand & Ors Vs Narendra Kumar & Ors