Merely Attempting To Overtake A Vehicle Is Not Rashness Or Negligence: SC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation
The Supreme Court observed that a mere attempt to overtake a vehicle cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence when nothing to the contrary is suggested by the record.
The Court was hearing an appeal by special leave challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the First Appeal. The claimants had appealed to the High Court against the order by the Additional District Judge in the Motor Accident Claim case.
The bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “…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.”
Brief Facts-
The claimant-appellant and his wife were involved in a motorcycle accident with two tractors resulting in the death of his wife. He suffered serious injuries. They were jointly running a business earning Rs. 5,000 per month. The claimant sought Rs. 12L in compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1L while noting that there was contributory negligence. The claimant appealed to the High Court that increase the compensation by applying a multiplier of 14 instead of 9. A subsequent recall application by the claimant was dismissed. He approached the Court against both the orders in the present appeal.
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer & Anr. where the Court discussed the concept of negligence and its types, i.e., composite and contributory, the Court quoted, “Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. No absolute standard can be fixed and no mathematically exact formula can be laid down by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case…It is the absence of care according to circumstances. To determine whether an act would be or would not be negligent, it is relevant to determine if any reasonable man would foresee that the act would cause damage or not.”
“Contributory negligence is applicable solely to the conduct of a plaintiff. It means that there has been an act or omission on the part of the plaintiff which has materially contributed to the damage, the act or omission being of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence, although negligence is not given its usual meaning.”, the Court quoted further.
The Court noted that the appellant was doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. The Court also noted that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.
Accordingly, the Court said that the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant was erroneous and unjustified.
The Court said that the compensation awarded has to be revised.
Finally, the Court allowed the Appeals.
Cause Title: Prem Lal Anand v. Narendra Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 585)