Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 19, 2024, set aside the Karnataka High Court's findings that the driver of a passenger car was equally liable for an accident involving a 14-wheeler trailer truck parked in the middle of the road without parking lights late at night.

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta found the truck's person in control, covered by insurance, solely accountable for the negligence that caused the accident, which claimed four lives.

"On a holistic analysis of the material available on record, it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law," the bench held.

The bench noted that the accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits were fairly high. 

"In such a situation, it would be 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," the court said.

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 the principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained, the bench held.

Court allowed the appeals against the Karnataka High Court's division bench judgments of April 7, 2021. The collision had resulted in the death of the passengers of the car, namely, Sunita, Ashtavinayak Patil, Deepali and the driver Saiprasad Karande at the spot. One of the passengers, namely, Smt Sushma (wife of deceased- Ashtavinayak Patil) survived the accident, however, sustaining grievous injuries.

The court said that the deduction of 50% of compensation awarded to appellant-claimants Sushma and others on account of contributory negligence, as directed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the Karnataka High Court, could not be sustained. 

"The finding recorded by the courts below on this issue is reversed as being perverse and unsustainable in the facts as well as in law," the bench said.

Resultantly, court directed that there would be no deduction from the compensation payable to the appellant-claimants who would be entitled to the full compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court for the accident on August 18, 2013.

It said, "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 bench also referred to legal provisions to point out 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," the bench said.

Court also pointed out that 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. 

"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," the bench said.

The court said that the view expressed by the high court that if the driver of the car had been vigilant and would have driven the vehicle carefully by following the traffic rules, the accident might have been avoided was presumptuous on the face of the record as the same was based purely on conjectures and surmises.

"Nothing on record indicates that the car was being driven at an excessively high speed or that the driver failed to follow the traffic rules. 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 bench said.

The bench held the courts below erred in concluding that it was 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.

"We feel that the contentious finding whereby, the driver of the car, namely, Saiprasad Karande (deceased) was held jointly responsible for causing the accident along with the driver/owner of the offending truck leading to the claims of the passenger-Sushma & dependants of the deceased-passengers being deducted by 50% on the principle of contributory negligence is perverse on the face of the record," the bench said.

In addition, the bench held that the finding of the courts below, which reduced the claims of the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured, other than the legal heirs of the driver-Saiprasad Karande (deceased) was also invalid in the eyes of law. 

The bench also pointed out that 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, the bench said.

In the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co Ltd (1997), the bench said, it has been held that the 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.

"We have no hesitation in holding that the courts below committed gross error in law while reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants, being the dependents of the deceased-passengers and Smt Sushma as the claims of these claimants cannot be truncated by attaching the vicarious liability with the driver," the bench said.

Court finally directed that the Insurer would be jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the offending truck to indemnify the awards. 

Case Title: Sushma Vs Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors