Mere Plea Of Head-On Collision Doesn't Establish Contributory Negligence In Motor Accident Claim Cases: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, held that a mere plea of head-on collision does not automatically establish contributory negligence in a motor accident claim.

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, while considering an appeal filed by the insurance company against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, rejected the insurer's challenge to the finding of negligence and quantum of compensation, and partly allowed the appeal by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

The claim petition arose out of an accident dated 23.03.2015. The deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle when a DCM vehicle dashed against it. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries the following day while undergoing treatment. A criminal case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the DCM vehicle.

The wife, minor children and parents of the deceased sought compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-, stating that he was aged 40 years and earning by engagement in the agriculture and hotel business and that the family was entirely dependent on the deceased's income for their livelihood. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,40,405/- with interest at 9% per annum and fastened joint and several liability on the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

Aggrieved by the award, the insurance company preferred the appeal.

Before the High Court, the insurer contended that the accident was a case of contributory negligence, as it involved a head-on collision between two vehicles. It was argued that in such circumstances, negligence ought to have been attributed to both drivers.

The insurer further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and therefore there was a breach of policy conditions. It also questioned the addition of future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses, and the award of interest at 9% per annum.

While examining the plea of contributory negligence, the High Court noted that the Tribunal had relied upon the evidence of the eye-witness and documentary evidence, including the FIR and charge sheet. The charge sheet had been filed against the driver of the DCM vehicle. The Court observed that no contra evidence was produced by the insurance company to “dislodge” the said finding.

In this context, the Court held that “a mere plea of head-on collision, without supporting evidence, does not automatically establish contributory negligence”. It further observed that the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal was based on preponderance of probabilities and “warrants no interference”.

Furthermore, on the contention regarding the absence of a valid driving licence, the Court held that “no cogent evidence was adduced to establish a fundamental breach of policy conditions”. It held that merely marking the driving licence extract without examining the relevant authority was insufficient. Hence, since the policy was in force on the date of the accident, fastening liability on the insurer was upheld.

With respect to the quantum of compensation, the Court found that the Tribunal had assessed income, applied the appropriate multiplier, and made deductions in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi. The compensation awarded was therefore confirmed.

However, on the rate of interest, the Court referred to the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mannat Johal and held that the appropriate rate of interest in motor accident claims is 7.5% per annum.

“Therefore, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% annum is on the higher side and requires modification. Except for the modification in the rate of interest, the award passed by the Tribunal in all respects is upheld as just and reasonable”, the Court held. Accordingly, the interest was reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed to the limited extent of reducing the rate of interest. The findings on negligence, liability and quantum of compensation were affirmed by the High Court.

Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Mamilla Jangamma

Case No.: M.A.C.M.A No. 539 of 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order