The Gujarat High Court examined the issue of contributory negligence in a motor accident compensation claim where a motorcycle carrying three persons was involved in a fatal collision. The Court held that merely riding with more than the permitted number of passengers on a two-wheeler does not automatically amount to contributory negligence unless there is clear evidence showing that the violation contributed to the occurrence of the accident or to the extent of injuries suffered.
The case arose from a road accident in which a motorcycle carrying three individuals was hit by a bus coming from the opposite direction. The impact resulted in the death of the rider and another occupant, while the third person sustained injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. While the Tribunal awarded compensation, it reduced the amount by attributing a portion of contributory negligence to the deceased on the sole ground that the motorcycle was being ridden by three persons at the time of the accident.
The Tribunal reasoned that tripling on a motorcycle constituted a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore treated it as contributory negligence. On this basis, the Tribunal deducted a percentage from the compensation payable to the claimants. Aggrieved by this reduction, the claimants approached the Gujarat High Court, contending that there was no evidence to show that the presence of a third rider had any role in causing the accident or in worsening its consequences.
The High Court considered the evidence on record and noted that the accident occurred due to the bus colliding with the motorcycle from the opposite direction. There was no material to suggest that the motorcycle lost balance, control, or stability because of the extra passenger, nor was there any indication that the number of riders influenced the manner in which the accident took place. The Court observed that in the absence of such evidence, it was incorrect to presume contributory negligence solely on the basis of a traffic rule violation.
The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that contributory negligence must be established through a causal connection between the conduct of the victim and the accident. A mere breach of statutory provisions, such as carrying more passengers than permitted, does not by itself justify a finding of contributory negligence. The Court emphasized that unless it is shown that the violation directly contributed to the accident or aggravated the injuries, compensation cannot be reduced on that ground.
Applying these principles, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased without any supporting evidence. It set aside the finding of contributory negligence and restored the compensation without the deduction that had been made on account of tripling. The Court clarified that while violations of traffic laws may have consequences under other legal provisions, they cannot automatically be used to reduce compensation in motor accident claims.
The judgment underscores the need for tribunals and courts to base findings of contributory negligence on concrete evidence rather than assumptions. It reinforces that compensation under motor accident law should not be curtailed unless there is clear proof that the claimant’s own conduct played a role in causing the accident or increasing the harm suffered.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.