LexSUSHMA versus NITIN GANAPATI RANGOLE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 425 : 2024 INSC 706 Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 10648 of 2024) 19 September 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The core issue involved in these appeals centres around the deduction of 50% compensation awardable to the appellant- claimants, who have assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the aspect of contributory negligence whereby, the driver of the car, who also died in the accident, was held jointly responsible for causing the collision. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – A car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck which was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights – The collision resulted into the death of the passengers of the car and the driver – Only one passenger-S survived – The injured S and the legal heirs of the deceased occupants of the car filed separate claim petitions – The Tribunal directed reduction of the compensation awarded by 50% on account of contributory negligence by driver of the car – The High Court approved the Tribunal observation with respect to contributory negligence – Correctness: Held: On a holistic analysis of the material available on record, it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic – This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law – The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high – In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable * Author 426 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision – The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult – Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained – As a consequence, the deduction of 50% of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants on account of contributory negligence, as directed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, cannot be sustained. [Paras 40, 42] Case Law Cited Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India [2022] 13 SCR 523 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322; Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P [2022] 6 SCR 989 : (2022) 8 SCC 253; Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [1997] Supp. 4 SCR 643 : (1997) 8 SCC 683; Archit Saini and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others [2018] 1 SCR 626 : (2018) 3 SCC 365 – relied on. Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak (2002) 6 SCC 455 – referred to. Astley v. Austrust Ltd (1999) 73 ALJR 403; Swadling v. Cooper 1931 AC 1 – referred to. List of Acts Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Rules of Road Regulations, 1989; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Compensation; Reduction of Compensation awarded by 50% on account of contributory negligence; Contributory negligence. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in MFA No. 102775 of 2016 With Civil Appeal Nos. 10649, 10650, 10651, 10652-10653 of 2024 [2024] 9 S.C.R. 427 Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors. Appearances for Parties Nitin Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, P. Srinivasan, Ms. Vartika, Manish Kumar, Ishwar Singh, Gopal Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 21172 of 2021 Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 1023 of 2022 Civil Appeals
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.