New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that in motor accident claims, negligence cannot be determined by mechanically blaming one party alone, and must instead rest on a balanced, objective, and comparative assessment of the conduct of all parties involved, particularly in cases of head-on collisions where shared responsibility may arise.
Setting aside the dismissal of compensation claims in a 2009 fatal road accident case, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in attributing the entire blame solely to the deceased car driver without properly examining the role of the Haryana Roadways bus driver.
The apex court remanded the matter to the MACT, Bhiwani, for fresh adjudication, observing that the approach adopted by the lower forums was inconsistent with settled legal principles governing negligence in motor accident cases.
“The determination of negligence must be founded upon a balanced and objective assessment of the conduct of all parties involved, particularly where the circumstances suggest a possible sharing of responsibility,” the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench observed.
The case arose from a January 13, 2009, accident near Balambha Mor in Haryana, where Hari Om and Sher Singh died after their car collided head-on with a Haryana Roadways bus coming from the opposite direction.
Hari Om’s widow, Parmila and other legal heirs had approached the Supreme Court after their compensation plea was rejected by the Tribunal, which held Hari Om solely negligent. The P&H High Court later affirmed that finding.
Finding fault with this reasoning, the Supreme Court said that in a head-on collision, complete exclusion of contributory negligence on the part of one driver ordinarily requires careful judicial scrutiny.
“The complete exclusion of contributory negligence on the part of one driver, especially in a head-on collision, ordinarily warrants a careful scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances, including the manner of driving, the point of impact, and other attendant factors,” the bench said, adding that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court conducted such an exercise.
Expressing concern over the findings, the top court said the conclusion that the entire blame rested on Hari Om was reached without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident.
“At the outset, we must express our perplexity at the findings recorded by the courts below, which completely absolve respondent No. 1 (bus driver) Rajender of even any contributory negligence,” the bench remarked.
The Supreme Court further stressed that respondent Rajender was a crucial witness who could have explained the manner of the accident, but his failure to enter the witness box was a material omission ignored by the lower courts.
“The approach adopted by the courts below, in attributing the entirety of blame to one party without adequately examining the role and conduct of the other, does not align with the settled principles governing adjudication of negligence in motor accident cases,” it held.
Accordingly, the bench set aside the impugned judgments and directed the MACT, Bhiwani, to reconsider the compensation claims after granting due opportunity to the parties and returning findings on all issues.
