In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India modified a High Court ruling on contributory negligence in a fatal motor accident case and awarded compensation of ₹36,38,750 to the family of the deceased. The Court held that the negligence of both the deceased car driver and the lorry driver should be treated as equal and apportioned liability at 50% each, instead of the 70:30 apportionment made by the High Court.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran in the matter of Smt. M. Sabitha & Ors. vs Brahma Swamulu & Anr.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the claimants—wife, two minor children, and mother of the deceased—challenging the order of the High Court which had fixed contributory negligence of the deceased at 70% in a head-on collision between a car and a lorry. The car was driven by the deceased, and the impact led to his instant death.
Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded only ₹50,000 to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had relied upon the FIR registered against the deceased and the final report closing the case since the accused (the deceased driver) was no more. The High Court partly modified this and held that both drivers were negligent, but fixed only 30% liability on the lorry driver.
Parties’ Submissions and Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court observed that the FIR was based on information provided by the lorry driver and no further investigation was carried out by the police. The Court held that no reliance could be placed solely on the FIR to establish the negligence of the deceased.
The Court also considered the rough sketch marked as Exhibit B-5 which indicated that the car was attempting to overtake a lorry and collided with another lorry approaching from the opposite direction. Importantly, after the impact, the car was dragged for about 20 feet, which the Court noted as indicative of rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver.
The High Court had referred to the statement under Section 161 CrPC of PW-1 (the wife of the deceased), who was not present at the scene, and whose statement was based on information from an unexamined eyewitness. The Supreme Court ruled that such evidence was inadmissible and cannot be the basis for fixing liability.
Taking all circumstances into account, the Court observed:
“The fact remains that there was a collision, and that the car was dragged to a distance of 20 feet after the collision, clearly indicating rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver. We are hence inclined to find that the contributory negligence on the drivers will be equal, since there is fault on the part of the car driver in not taking sufficient care when overtaking, while the impact could have been avoided or gravity lessened, if the lorry had been driven in normal speed.”
Compensation Recalculation
Referring to the Income Tax Returns, the Court accepted the annual income of the deceased as ₹4,50,000 and added 40% towards future prospects. With five dependants, a deduction of 1/4th was applied for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 15 was adopted considering the deceased’s age (38 years).
The Court relied on the decision in New India Assurance Company v. Somwati & Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 644] to award consortium compensation not just to the spouse but also to the children and mother of the deceased. Each of the four dependents was awarded ₹40,000 under the head of loss of consortium.
Break-up of compensation:
| Heads of Claim | Amount (INR) |
| Loss of Dependency | ₹70,87,500 |
| Loss of Consortium | ₹1,60,000 |
| Loss of Estate | ₹15,000 |
| Funeral Expenses | ₹15,000 |
| Total | ₹72,77,500 |
| After 50% deduction for contributory negligence | ₹36,38,750 |
The Court ordered payment of the awarded amount with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Any interim compensation paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act would be deducted from the final amount.
Final Order
The appeal was allowed with the aforementioned modifications. The Supreme Court’s decision corrected the High Court’s attribution of disproportionate contributory negligence and secured a more balanced relief for the dependents of the deceased.
