Violation of law by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that he contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 15th January 2020

MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE & ANR. V/s. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL No.79 OF 2020

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The son of the appellants who was aged about 23 years, died on 7.09.2008 as a result of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that took place on 5.09.2008. It appears that the victim was one of the 2 pillion riders on a motor cycle and he was thrown off the vehicle when a car hit the motor cycle from behind.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. This finding was confirmed by the High Court, though with a rider that the victim was also guilty of contributory negligence, in as much as there were 3 persons on the motor cycle at the time of the accident, requiring a reduction of 10% of the compensation awarded.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from the sum of Rs.11,66,800/­ to Rs.4,14,000/­, the parents of the deceased­ accident victim have come up with the present appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether mere violation of any law will amount the action to be termed and be brought under the perspective of contributory negligence?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court’s order and upholding the order of Tribunal, allowed the appeal by observing the following findings:

1. “But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked.”
2. “It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from 7 behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record.”