THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus SHRI LAXMAN IYER AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 27-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Of GREATER BOMBAY 
v. 
SHRI LAXMAN IYER AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 27, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Sections 110-A and 110-B. 
Accident-Claims petition-Compensation-Fixing of-Contributory 
Negligence-Effect of-Held: If contributory negligence is proved, Court 
C empowered to apportion loss between the parties appropriately. 
Compensation-Determination of-Age of the claimants-Relevancy 
of-Held : It is not the age of the deceased alone but the age oj the 
claimants as well, which are relevant factors in case parents or other 
D dependents are claimants. 
E 
Compensation-Multiplier method of quantification of-Relevant 
factors-Held : (i) age of deceased, (ii) marital status of deceased, (iii) 
separate income of claimants and their education and (iv) loss of pecuniary 
benefits. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Negligence" and "contributory negligence"-Meaning of-In the 
context of S. I 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, I 939. 
F 
Doctrines : 
Doctrine of last opportunity-Explained. 
, 
The respondents-parents of the deceased, who was aged 18 years, 
filed a claims petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 
G The Tribunal found that the parents of the deceased came· form a 
respectable and educated family and adopting a m~ltiplier of 15 a 
certain sum was awarded as compensation under SeC:fions 110-A and 
110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Coult, in appeal, held 
that the compensation fixed was pr~per but reduced
1the interest from 
. 
. 
f' 
H 15% to 12% per. annum. Hence the appeal. 
984 
: 
I 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OE GREATER BOMBAY v. LAXMAN !YER 
985 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the parents of A 
the deceased being the claimants, the multiplier as adopted was not 
proper; that this was a case where the accident occurred more on 
account of deceased's negligence than that of the driver of th~ 
offending vehicle; that this was a clear case of contributory negligence; 
and, therefore, th,e awarded amount could not be maintained. 
B 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD : 1.l. Though there is no statutory definition, in common 
parlance "negligence" is categorised as either composite or contributory. C 
Negligence is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do 
something, which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations 
who ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do or be 
obligated to, or by doing something which a prudent or a reasonable 
man would not do. Negligence does not always mean absolute D 
carelessness, but want of such a degree of care as is required in 
particular circumstances. Negligence is failure to observe, for the 
protection of the interests of another person, the degree of care, 
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, 
whereby such other person suffers injury. The idea of negligence and 
duty are strictly correlative. Negligence means either subjectively a E 
careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. (990-E-G] 
1.2. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one; it 
is rather a comparative term. No absolute standard can be fixed a~d 
no mathematically exact formula can be laid down by which negligence F 
or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. What constitutes 
negligence varies under different conditions and in determining wheth,er 
negligence exists in a particular case or whether a mere act or course 
of conduct amounts to negligence, all the attending and surroundihg 
facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. It is absence G 
of care according to circumstances. [990-G-H, 991-A-B] 
2.1. To determine whether an act would be or would not be 
negligent, it is relevant to determine if any reasonable man would 
foresee that the act would cause damage or not. The omission t'l do H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A what the law obligates or even the failure to do anything in ~ manner, 
mode or method envisaged by law would equally and per se constitute 
negligence on the part of such a person. If the answer is in the 
affirmative, it is a negligent act. (991-B-Cf 
B 
2.2. Where an accident is due to negligence of both 
1parties, 
substantially there would be contributory negligence and both would 
be blamed. In a case of contributory negligence, the crucial question 
on which liability depends would be whether either party could, by 
exercise of reasonable care, have 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.