Rashness & Negligence In Driving Is A Subjective Determination Depending on Different Factors: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that rashness and negligence in driving is a subjective determination depending on different factors like road condition, the volume of traffic, habitation in the area, and weather conditions. Noting that the accident took place on a single road on a foggy morning, Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary held that the accident was not a case of composite negligence and revised the compensation amount accordingly. Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of Alto car, preferred this appeal against the compensation award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The deceased, boarding an Alto Car, collided with a stationary truck. The Tribunal made out a case of contributory negligence and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,51,000/- against the insurer of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50% each. As per the FIR under Sections 279, 283, 304A/427/338, the accident occurred due to a fault on the part of thetruck'ss driver, which was parked on the road without putting the tail light or blinkers on. However, the Tribunal has returned a finding on the issue of composite negligence,,, holding the driver of both the vehicles equally liable for the accident. On the averment of the Insurer Company that the premium of the passenger was not paid, the Court referred to a judgment of the apex court, as per which the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The two major issues before the Court were: (1) Whether the finding of fact on composite negligence on the part of both the vehicles is sustainable in the light of the evidence on record; (2) Whether the Insurance policy covered the passengers of the Alto Car. In the claimant'ss case, on a fateful night, there was awful fog, and therefore, the driver of the car could not see the stationary truck parked. The eye-witnesses provided testimony to this claimThe eye-witnesses provided testimony to this claim, examined during the case. The Court noted that the proximate cause of the accident was the wrong manner of parking on the road. It noted,"The accident was the result of flagrant negligence on the part of the truck driver to have parked the truck on the road without following any of the traffic rules to avoid such a tragic accident which claimed three lives in it"It referred to Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The driver of the Maruti car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker due to the flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side resulting in a collision. In the said case, the Supreme Court held it to be a case of contributory negligence. Noting that the compensation calculation does not include compensation under the head of prospect and conventional, the Court revised the compensation at Rs. 7,22,120/.Case Title: The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sita Chowdhury & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 22Click Here To Download The Order Read The Order

Rashness & Negligence In Driving Is A Subjective Determination Depending on Different Factors: Jharkhand High Court

Shrutika Pandey

Tags