Andhra Pradesh High Court Clarifies Legal Approach to Contributory Negligence in Motor Accident Compensation Claims

In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court provided guidance on disputing negligence in motor vehicle accident claims. The case involved an incident on June 24, 2013, where Jyothi Marthamma was fatally injured by an APSRTC bus while crossing the road near her workplace at a brick kiln. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) determined that the accident resulted from the bus driver's rash and negligent driving, a conclusion supported by witness testimonies and police documentation. Consequently, the MACT awarded a total compensation of ₹4,62,000 with interest at 6% per annum, apportioned among the deceased's husband, two daughters, and mother.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) contested this decision, arguing that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence and that the compensation amount was excessive. Upon reviewing the case, the High Court upheld the MACT's findings, emphasizing that the evidence did not support APSRTC's claims. The court highlighted that disputing negligence requires more than mere denial; it necessitates presenting evidence to substantiate such claims.

Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma outlined advisory parameters for disputing negligence in motor vehicle accident claims, including the necessity of denial, presentation of evidence, examination of eyewitnesses, and, in complex cases, summoning investigating officers. The court also noted that while these guidelines are helpful, each case should be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances.

This judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims of contributory negligence with concrete evidence in motor accident cases. It aligns with the Supreme Court's stance that contributory negligence cannot be presumed without direct or corroborative evidence.

The decision also reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that victims receive just compensation and that claims of negligence are thoroughly examined.