Supreme Court holds equal contributory negligence in head-on collision, doubles award from interim sum to Rs.36.38 lakh with interest

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by the claimants against a High Court order that had fixed contributory negligence largely on the deceased car driver and awarded modest compensation. The controversy arose from a head-on collision between a car driven by the husband of the claimants and a lorry, which resulted in the death of the car driver; the claimants challenged the apportionment of liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and re-apportioned liability equally between the two drivers at 50% each, held that the claimants were entitled to half of the computed compensation and directed payment with interest while adjusting interim receipts. The Court observed that certain documentary and testimonial materials could not sustain a finding of sole negligence against the car driver, noting that "no reliance can be placed on such FIR to find negligence on the driver of the car." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The fact remains that there was a collision, and that the car was dragged to a distance of 20 feet after the collision, clearly indicating rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver. We are hence inclined to find that the contributory negligence on the drivers will be equal, since there is fault on the part of the car driver in not taking sufficient care when overtaking, while the impact could have been avoided or gravity lessened, if the lorry had been driven in normal speed. Hence, apportionment of liability can be fixed at 50% for each." The Court computed the total compensation at Rs.72,77,500 and, after applying 50% contributory negligence, directed payment of Rs.36,38,750 with interest at 7% per annum and deduction of the interim sum granted under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Background The dispute arose after a head-on collision in which the car driver died; the claim petition sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal accepted criminal records and awarded only Rs.50,000 under Section 140 as interim relief. The High Court examined a rough sketch of the scene (Exhibit B-5) and section 161 CrPC statements, concluded that both drivers were negligent but fixed only 30% liability on the lorry driver and held the deceased largely responsible. The Supreme Court noted that the FIR had been lodged by the lorry driver against the deceased and that the police had closed the criminal case because the accused was dead; the Court held that "no reliance can be placed on such FIR" for civil apportionment. The Court also noted that PW‑1's Section 161 statement was hearsay based on an eyewitness who was not examined, and therefore could not be the sole basis for attributing negligence to the deceased. Applying attendant circumstances — notably that the car was dragged about 20 feet after collision, indicating high speed of the lorry — the Court found equal contributory fault and recalculated compensation. For computation the Court accepted annual income on record at Rs.4,50,000, added 40% for future prospects for the 38‑year‑old deceased, applied a one‑fourth deduction for personal expenses, and used multiplier 15. The Court followed its earlier decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati for awarding consortium to dependents and awarded Rs.40,000 each to the wife, two minor children and the mother, with additional sums for loss of estate and funeral expenses. The appeal was allowed with the above modifications; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 601 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4875 of 2019) Case Title: Smt. M. Sabitha & Ors. v. Brahma Swamulu & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment