Contributory Negligence in Motor Vehicle Accident, MV Act, 1988

Contributory Negligence in Motor Vehicle Accident

In a significant ruling , the Bombay High Court held that mere finding of motorcycle in the middle of road would not prove contributory negligence of deceased and the court directed to the Insurance Company shall pay and recover amount from the owner of vehicle . Contributory Negligence in Motor Vehicle Accident, First Appeal under Section 147,149,173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Brief Facts:

The brief fact is that the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and order dated 24/01/2017 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , by which the learned court has directed to the original respondent no. 4 to pay the claimant/present respondent no.1 to 6 an amount of Rs.7 lakh 50 thousand towards the compensation along with interest from the date of filing of the petition.  Motor Accident Compensation Claims.

Arguments of Insurance Company:

The defense of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not having a valid driving license to drive the motorcycle and the deceased was riding the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and it is further stated that the deceased was found driving in middle of the road and for this reason, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount as breach of conditions.

In an appeal , the learned advocate for the Insurance Company argued that the learned Member of Tribunal failed to consider that it is the case of contributory negligence . The Insurance Company referred an judgment 2010 the Manager, United India Insurance Company Co, Ltd. Vs. Kamalabai  Mukunda Kumara and others in support of his contentions, the Court held that when there is the fundamental breach of the policy, they the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay the compensation .

Argument of Claimants/Respondents

In an appeal, the learned Advocate for the claimants argued that the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of the deceased and applying the principles in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 AICC 612 SC , the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and it is further stated that there is no evidence on record to show that there was contributory negligence . The claimant cited a judgment 2018 SCC 208, TAC, pappu and others V. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another. In this case the SC held that there was breach of condition and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation first as well as to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

Court's Analysis, Observation:

The Learned Court considered the submissions and evidence/material present on record, this court finds that there is no perversity committed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. This court also held that merely finding of the motorcycle of the deceased in the middle of the road . It would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was a contributory negligence . The Bombay High Court held that merely finding the motorcycle in the middle of the road would not prove contributory negligence of the deceased.

Conclusion:

In this case, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jyoti Ravindra @ Ravi Salve, the court came to the conclusion that no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. The court held that the Insurance Company may proceed to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle and also held that the claimants to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant in this Court along with the accrued interest therein. The first Appeal , therefore, stands dismissed .

Latest Judgment, Contributory Negligence, Motor Accident Compensation Claims

FAQ:

1. Question: What was the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case regarding the finding of a motorcycle in the middle of the road?

Answer: The Bombay High Court held that merely finding the motorcycle in the middle of the road would not prove contributory negligence of the deceased.

2. Question: What was the defense of the Insurance Company in this case?

Answer: The Insurance Company argued that the deceased was not having a valid driving license and was driving in a rash and negligent manner, thus violating the conditions of the policy.

3. Question: What was the argument of the claimants/respondents in the appeal?

Answer: The claimants argued that there was no evidence of contributory negligence and cited relevant cases to support their claim for compensation.

4. Question: How did the Court analyze the arguments presented by the Insurance Company and the claimants/respondents?

Answer: The Court considered the submissions and evidence on record and found that there was no perversity in the decision of the Tribunal .

5. Question: What principle did the Court rely on to determine the liability of the Insurance Company in this case?

Answer: The Court cited a judgment that stated when there is a breach of condition, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation first and recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

6. Question: Was the Insurance Company successful in challenging the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal?

Answer: No, the Insurance Company was not successful as the Court found no grounds for interference in the impugned judgment and award.

7. Question: What amount was awarded as compensation to the claimants/respondents by the Tribunal?

Answer: The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 7 lakh 50 thousand towards compensation to the claimants/respondents.

8. Question: What precedent did the Court rely on to support its decision in this case?

Answer: The Court cited a judgment to support the decision that merely finding the motorcycle in the middle of the road does not prove contributory negligence .

9. Question: Was there any evidence of contributory negligence presented in the case?

Answer: No, there was no evidence presented to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

10. Question: How did the Court address the argument of the Insurance Company regarding the breach of conditions?

Answer: The Court held that the Insurance Company is still liable to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle.

11. Question: What was the significance of the judgment in the case New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jyoti Ravindra @ Ravi Salve ?

Answer: The Court dismissed the first appeal and allowed the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

12. Question: How did the Court determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants/respondents?

Answer: The Court considered the notional income of the deceased and applied relevant principles to determine the compensation amount.

13. Question: What was the basis of the Insurance Company's argument for not paying the compensation?

Answer: The Insurance Company argued that the deceased was driving without a valid license and in a rash and negligent manner , violating the conditions of the policy.

14. Question: What action did the Court direct the Insurance Company to take regarding the payment of compensation?

Answer: The Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation first and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle.

15. Question: Did the Court find any fault with the decision of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimants/respondents?

Answer: No, the Court found no fault with the decision of the Tribunal and upheld the award of compensation to the claimants/respondents.

Read More:

new changes under BSA,2023

Anticipatory bail in SCST