Contributory Negligence Of Driver Of Vehicle In Accident Cannot Be Vicariously Attached To Passengers: Supreme Court

The Court reversed the findings of the Karnataka High Court which had imposed joint responsibility on the both driver and passengers in a motor vehicle. The Bench referred to the decision in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1997), wherein the Apex Court explained that there cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a “right of control” of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It is clear from the ratio of the above judgment 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.”

Advocate Nitin Tambwekar represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Atul Nanda appeared for the respondents.

The legal heirs of the deceased occupants in a motor vehicle accident filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) claiming compensation from the offending truck's owner and insurer.

The claimants alleged that since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without switching on the parking lights or indicators or without taking any other precautionary measures to warn the incoming traffic, the person in control of the said vehicle was fully responsible for the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held that it was a case of contributory negligence by the drivers of both vehicles. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and the reduction on account of contributory negligence, the claimants filed appeals under Section 173(1) of the MV Act before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court applied the rule of “last opportunity” and held that had the driver of the car been cautious, he could have avoided the accident. The High Court gave imprimatur to the Tribunal’s observation with respect to contributory negligence, however, it modified and enhanced compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court 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) is also invalid in the eyes of law.”

The Bench stated that common sense required 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.

Section 122 of the MV Act provides that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any “public place” in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances so as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.

Consequently, the Court observed, “The Courts below erred in concluding that it is 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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 706)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Nitin Tambwekar, Sharanagouda Patil and Jyotish Pandey; AOR Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru and Supreeta Sharanagouda

Respondents: Senior Advocate Atul Nanda; Advocates Rameeza Hakeem, P. Srinivasan, Vartika, Manish Kumar and Ishwar Singh; AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy and Gopal Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment