Negligence must be proved, not presumed: SC on preponderance of probabilities in motor accident claims, Read Judgment

“In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication of the tortious liability flowing from it,” observed the Supreme Court while deciding an important case involving a young Block Development Officer (BDO) who tragically lost both his legs in a scooter-trailer accident. The case, arising out of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, saw conflicting findings by the Tribunal and the High Court on the issue of contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation. The Court examined the FIR, charge sheet, witness testimonies, and rival contentions before arriving at its final verdict.

The claimant, a young Block Development Officer, suffered the amputation of both legs due to a scooter-trailer accident while riding pillion. He claimed ₹16,00,000 compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded ₹7,50,000, attributing 60% liability to the insurance company and 40% to the scooter owner/driver, who held only a learner's license. The High Court upheld this, finding contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver and dismissing the claimant's appeal.

The petitioner argued that the compensation was inadequate considering the severity of the injuries and lifelong dependency on prosthetics and attendants. He contended that contributory negligence was wrongly attributed without proper evidence, and that the Tribunal erred by not awarding interest. The petitioner also sought additional compensation for recurring medical and prosthetic expenses.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The insurer argued that the Tribunal rightly limited its liability due to proven contributory negligence by the scooter driver, who lacked a valid license, and by the claimant, who was aware of this. The respondent emphasized that the accident occurred at the trailer's tail end, indicating no fault of the trailer driver. It also objected to the additional documents of medical expenses being considered at the appellate stage.

The Court first noted that despite the deletion of the trailer owner and scooter owner/driver from the High Court proceedings, “60% of the enhanced liability can very well be directed to be paid by the insurer of the trailer.”

The Court found that the FIR and charge sheet “clearly indicates that the trailer was found to have been driven rashly and negligently” and that “the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the trailer.” Importantly, “the insurer had not raised a contention of contributory negligence on the scooter driver in the written statement filed before the Tribunal.”

The Court criticized the High Court's approach stating, “there was no reason for the High Court to have laboured to harmonise the deposition of all the three witnesses.” Further, it emphasized that “finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing.” The Court clarified that “the mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learner’s licence would necessarily [not] lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence.”

Citing Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh (2008), the Court reiterated that “when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident.” The Court concluded, “the Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence of the scooter driver and the High Court too committed a similar error in affirming it.”

On compensation, the Court rejected the insurer's argument that no permanent disability exists due to the appellant’s promotion, observing that “the compensation for permanent disablement definitely has to [be] considered since it would necessarily lead to loss of life’s amenities.” It was held that “the entire amount of ₹16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) has to be awarded as compensation.”

The Court also remarked, “the accident occurred in the year 1999 and the award cannot have reference to the fact situation existing today; 25 years hence. The long delay is compensated by the interest awarded.”

The appeal was allowed. The compensation amount, after deducting ₹25,000 received under Section 140 of the Act, was directed to be paid to the appellant with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of the award. The insurance company was directed to compute the amounts and intimate the same to the appellant. The appellant was required to furnish his bank account details to enable RTGS/NEFT transfer of the compensation, which was to be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. All pending applications were disposed of.

Read Judgment @latestlaws.com, click here

Picture Source :