LexA.P.S.R.T.C.& ANR. versus K. HEMALATHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1201 A.P.S.R.T.C.& ANR. v. K. HEMALATHA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.3623-3626 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173: A B Claim for compensation - 'Contributory Negligence' and 'Composite Negligence' - Parameters of - Discussed - Held: C In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss of injuries, compensation is payable in respect of 'composite negligence' of the drivers of those vehicles - But in respect of such accident, if claim is D by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the 'composite negligence' of all the drivers, but about the 'contributory negli- E gence' of the driver concerned - Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of negligence on his part but damages re- coverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his 'contributory negligence' - Where the injured F is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50. A compensation claim was filed before the Accident Claims Tribunal. It was the case of the claimants that the G deceased and injured claimant were proceeding on mo- torcycle when a bus came from back side and dashed the same. The claim was resisted by the Appellant-Cor- poration on the ground that the bus did not hit the motor- 1201 H 1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A cycle and that on seeing the speeding bus, the deceased himself got puzzled and skidded off the road; as such, the deceased and claimant suffered injuries. It was the case of the Corporation that the bus of the Corporation did not hit the motor cycle at all; as such, there was no s negligence on the part of the driver of the bus of the Cor- poration, to claim compensation from it. The Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence and after making 1/3rd deduction therefor, awarded compensation together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The High Court how- C ever held that there was no contributory negligence and partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimants while dis- missing the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation. In appeals to this Court, the Appellant submitted that the High Court had misread the evidence on record. It was D contended that the Tribunal referred to the evidence on record to conclude that the deceased was also partially responsible for the accident and therefore there was con- tributory negligence, however, the proportion of 1 :2 i.e. between the deceased and the Corporation, as fixed by E the Tribunal, was not correct. It was also contended that the rate of interest as awarded was extremely high. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. To determine the question as to who con- F tributed to the happening of the accident, it becomes rel- evant to ascertain who was driving his vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both were so doing who were more responsible for the accident and who of the two had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. In case the dam- G ages are to be apportioned, it must also be found that the plaintiff's fault was one of the causes of the damage and once that condition is fulfilled the damages have to be .. apportioned according to the apportioned share of the responsibility. If the negligence on the plaintiff's part has H also contributed to damage this cannot be ignored in as- A.P.S.R.T.C.& ANR. v. K. HEMALATHA 1203 & ORS. sessing the damages. He can be found guilty of contribu- A tory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable, reasoned man, he might be hit himself and he must take into account the possibility of others being careless. [Para 7] [1207-F,G & H; 1208-A] 1.2. The Tribunal had noticed that the deceased was 8 driving vehicle at a high speed with a view to attend the marriage function. Manner of the accident as deposed by the claimant's witnesses indicate that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident. The High Court was wrong in holding that the deceased had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.