Deceased Not Liable For Contributory Negligence For Not Having Driving License During Accident: HP High Court

Update: 2025-11-28 10:22 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the deceased did not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident, it does not make him liable for contributory negligence over the accident.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “In case, the deceased was not having the licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the deceased did not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident, it does not make him liable for contributory negligence over the accident.

Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “In case, the deceased was not having the licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him.”

The parents of the deceased, who was a class 10+1 student, had filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking ₹10 lakh compensation for the death of their son in 2013, which occurred due to an accident that involved a tipper truck.

The motor accident claims tribunal awarded them ₹3,42,750 with 7.5% interest, holding that the deceased's income should be taken as only ₹3,000/month, and 25% should be deducted for alleged contributory negligence as he did not have a driving licence.

Aggrieved, the parents approached the High Court.

The Court observed that the tribunal did not calculate the notional income properly as the deceased was a 16-year-old student with good academic and extracurricular performance, and he also aspired to become an IAS officer.

The Court remarked that keeping future prospects in mind, his notional income should be higher.

Thus, the High Court recalculated the compensation.

Case Name: Madhu Joshi and another v/s Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others

Case No.: FAO(MVA) No.341 of 2015

Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

For the appellants: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divya Raj Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent: Ms.Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Respondents No.1 and 2 ex-parte vide order dated 19.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View
Tags:    

Similar News