Supreme Court Holds Alto Driver Solely Responsible, Sets Aside Finding of Contributory Negligence and Enhances Compensation

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals challenging a common order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which had partly upheld an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kaithal, applying the principle of contributory negligence in a head-on collision that caused two fatalities. The appeals arose from claims by dependants of the deceased motorcyclists seeking enhancement of compensation and reversal of the finding that the motorcyclists had equally contributed to the accident.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, held that the High Court erred in upholding contributory negligence, and directed enhancement of the compensation which had been halved by the High Court. The Court noted that the MACT and the High Court had failed to consider material evidence and that a site plan prepared by the investigating agency, taken on record for the first time before this Court, corroborated the testimony of an eyewitness favourable to the claimants. The Court emphasised that "the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Therefore, as per the site plan, deceased Gautam was riding his motorcycle on his left side of the road when the Alto Car hit him. The site plan also corroborates the testimony of eyewitness PW4, complainant Suresh. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh only, driver of Alto car and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased Gautam." The Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation payable to the dependants of deceased Gautam to Rs. 9,84,000 and to the dependants of deceased Harpal Singh to Rs. 12,62,400, with interest at 9% per annum, and directed deposit of the balance amounts with the MACT within six weeks.

Background The dispute arose from a head-on collision on 26.07.2009 between a newly purchased motorcycle (chassis No. S107RP602050) ridden by the deceased Gautam with a pillion rider Harpal Singh, and an Alto car (registration HR08-J-3157) driven by Gulzar Singh. Both motorcyclists died; a passenger in the car, Kulwinder Singh, suffered injuries. The MACT found contributory negligence and awarded compensation but reduced it by 50% on that ground. The High Court enhanced the quantum of compensation by reassessing monthly earnings and multipliers but upheld the application of contributory negligence, relying largely on the testimony of injured eyewitness Kulwinder Singh and precedents that, in head-on collisions, drivers may share responsibility.

The appellants challenged the contributory negligence finding and produced, before this Court, a site plan prepared by the investigating agency which had not been before the MACT. They relied on testimony of another eyewitness, Suresh Kumar (PW4), who had stated that the motorcycle was on its correct side and the Alto was driven at high speed. Respondents contended that the motorcyclist did not hold a valid licence and that the collision was head-on, implying shared fault. The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to file the site plan as an additional document, observing the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act and the summary nature of such proceedings. The Court found the site plan corroborated PW4 and demonstrated that the motorcycle was on its left side and the Alto struck it, attributing sole rash and negligent driving to the Alto driver. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's finding of contributory negligence, restored the deducted amounts, maintained interest at 9% as awarded by the High Court, and directed deposit of the balance with the MACT within six weeks. No order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 741 Case Title: Rajo Devi & Anr. Etc. v. Manjeet Kaur & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not specified in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not specified in the judgment