Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 741
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). ____________OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 993-994 of 2024)
RAJO DEVI & ANR. ETC. Appellant(s)……
VERSUS
MANJEET KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s)…….
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order
dated 27.02.2020 in FAO No. 1905 of 2014 (O&M) and 8197 of
2014 (O&M) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had
partially upheld the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (‘MACT’ for short) to the extent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.05.20
18:16:02 IST
Reason:
of application of principle of contributory negligence.
1
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2009, a
newly purchased motorcycle bearing chassis No. S107RP602050
(insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited (Respondent no. 5 herein) was being driven by the
deceased Gautam who happened to be a bachelor aged around 22
years (son of claimants, namely Rajo Devi (appellant no. 1 herein)
and Prem Chand (appellant no. 2 herein) and on which his
brother-in-law, deceased Harpal Singh (his dependants are
Harjinder Kaur, Babu Singh and Noordeep (appellant nos. 3, 4 &
5 herein respectively) aged about 30 years, was riding pillion.
While they were going on the main road in the area of Police
Station Kaithal, an Alto car bearing registration No. HR08-J-3157
(insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limited
(Respondent no. 6 herein)) being driven by Gulzar Singh and in
which one Kulwinder Singh (since injured) was sitting next to the
car driver, came from the opposite side and a head-on collision
took place between the two vehicles, leading to death of both the
motorcyclists and injuries to Kulwinder Singh. The owner and
driver of alto car, namely, Gulzar Singh, died after sometime due
to some other reason and was represented by his LRs, namely
2
Manjeet Kaur, Virender Singh and Sarabjeet Singh (Respondents
no. 1, 2 & 3 herein respectively) before the Trial Court.
Accordingly, amongst other petitions, two petitions were filed
4.
by the petitioners herein before the MACT, Kaithal. The Ld.
Tribunal vide its order dated 03.06.2011 opined that the accident
in question was a clear-cut case of contributory negligence and
accordingly, the dependants of deceased Gautam were held
entitled to Rs. 86,000/- which was 50% of total compensation of
Rs. 1,72,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of
deceased Gautam as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering
him as a casual labourer and applying the multiplier of 9.
Similarly, the dependants of deceased Harpal Singh were held
entitled to Rs. 2,23,000/- which was 50% of total compensation
of Rs. 4,23,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of
deceased Harpal as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering the
minimum wages and applying the multiplier of 17.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of MACT an
appeal was preferred by the appellants herein claiming
enhancement of compensation amount and the issue of
contributory negligence be decided in favour of the appellants
herein. The High Court vide the impugned common order has
3
partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of
compensation payable to the dependants of deceased Gautam
and Harpal Singh by assessing their monthly income as Rs.
4,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier
of 18 and 17 respectively, thereby arriving at total compensation
of Rs. 5,52,000/- in case of deceased Gautam and Rs. 6,91,200/-
in case of deceased Harpal Singh. The High Court has also
enhanced the interest from 7% p.a to 9% p.a. However, the High
Court has upheld the applicability of the principle of contributory
negligence.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the High Court the appellants herein have preferred
the present appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous in not considering the testimony of
other eyewitness namely, Suresh Kumar (PW4) and relying upon
the testimony of Kulwinder Singh (PW 5) only. It was further
submitted that the principle of contributory negligence has been
wrongly applied by the High Court in ignorance of the testimony
of PW4 who had deposed that deceased Gautam was riding his
motorcycle at a normal speed on his left side when the Alto car
4
came from opposite side in a high speed and was very rashly and
negligently driven.
It was next submitted that the High Court erred in law by
8.
differentiating in the income of deceased Gautam and pillion
rider Harpal. The income of the deceased Gautam has been
assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month whereas that of deceased
Harpal has been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month despite the
fact that they both were in the same profession i.e. running a hair
cutting salon and were hair dressers. The differentiation in
assessment of income of both the deceased is irrational and
without any basis.
9. It was further submitted that the site plan of the accident
prepared by the investigating agency, which was not in the
knowledge of the petitioners herein was never brought on record
and that the same would show that the accident took place
because of the negligence of the driver of Alto car only.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.
5 submitted that deceased Gautam, who was the driver of the
motorcycle in question, was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence. It was submitted that the accident in question
had taken place due to the sole negligence and rashness of
5
Gulzar Singh, who was the driver of Alto car. It was further
submitted that as the motorcycle in question was not the
offending vehicle, respondent no. 5 is not liable to pay any
compensation.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submitted
that the accident in question was a head-on collision and
accordingly, the driver of both the vehicles need to be held
responsible as they had contributed equally to the accident. With
regard to the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that
the same has been awarded at higher side by the High Court in
the impugned order. It was further submitted that the site plan
cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage before this court.
12. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of a respondent
nos. 1 to 3 herein who are the legal heirs of deceased Gulzar
Singh (driver of Alto car) and respondent no. 4 herein (owner of
the accidental motorcycle).
13. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides at length
and perused the relevant documents placed on record.
14. The High Court while upholding the application of principle
of contributory negligence and assessing the income of the
deceased persons has observed as under:
6
“ The testimony of Kulwinder Singh is the most important one
as no other eye-witness to this incident has been examined by
any of the sides. Being an injured eye-witness, is certainly a
stamp witness in the realm of evidence. In his cross-
examination Kulwinder Singh as PWS has admitted the fact
that the Alto car was being driven at a speed of 60 kilometres
per hour and the accident has occurred in middle of the road
and it was a head on collision. The contentions of the counsel
representing the insurance company that it is a clear-cut case
of contributory negligence could not be displaced by any of the
counsel representing the other side. Learned counsel for the
insurance company has placed on record 'Bijoy Kumar Dugar
vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & others' 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 590 ,
where in a similar proposition, the Supreme Court has held
that where the vehicles had a head-on collision the drivers of
both vehicles need to be responsible to have contributed equally
to the accident. In the present case, in the light of the fact that
there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court needs to hold it
so and the findings drawn by the impugned award to that
effect need to be upheld.
In case of claim by the parents of deceased Gautam, it is
admitted that the deceased was a bachelor aged around 22
years. Though much fanfare has been sought to be raised over
the factum that he was not holding a valid driving license, but
the same has not been proved by the insurance company on
whom the onus lay, and rather the driving license of driver of
the Alto car Guljar Singh has been brought on record as Ex.Rl,
registration certificate of the Alto car as Ex.R2 and the
insurance police as Ex.R3. Learned counsel for the insurer of
the Alto car fairly concedes that at the time of accident the car
was under insurance cover. No avocation of deceased Gautam
and Harpal Singh has been proved. It is also not in any
manner displaced that they were running hair-cutting saloon
and were hair-dressers. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed
the earnings of Gautam and Harpal to be of casual labourers.
Keeping in view the age of Gautam and the fact that he
happens to be young unmarried grown up son of aged parents,
who were totally dependent and that Harpal Singh too was
young aged around 30 years with a widow and two minor
children as dependents and keeping in view that the factum of
their avocation is not denied though there is no proof of their
earnings, this Court taking into consideration the objective of
the Act being of welfare nature, feels it expedient to hold that
7
by all likelihood Gautam must be earning~ 4,000/- per month
and Harpal Singh ~ 5,000/- per month. The same is also
commensurate with the family strength they were looking after
in such days of escalating prices of essential commodities and
cost of living. Accordingly, the annual income of deceased
Gautam comes to ~48,000/- and that of deceased Harpal
Singh~ 60,000/-.
As regards future prospects are concerned, the dependants of
deceased Gautam shall be entitled to 50% of his annual
earnings i.e. ~24,000/- and thus his total income after addition
of future prospects comes to ~ 72,000/-. Keeping in view that
Gautam was a bachelor and must be contributing 1/3rd on his
own. upkeep and maintenance, and has only two aged parents
as dependents therefore, deduction of 1/3rd on his personal
expenses and maintenance is appropriate and as such his
dependency comes to ~ 48,000/.,. (72000 x 2/3). In the light of
age of the deceased and that of his parents, multiplier of 18 is
applied whereby the compensation comes to ~ 8,64,000/-
(48000 x 18). Since it is a proven case of contributory
negligence and Gautam was driving the motorcycle and has
equally contributed to this accident, therefore the claimants in
his case shall be entitled to 50% of the compensation i.e.
~4,32,000/-. Taking the earnings of deceased Harpal Singh to
be ~60,000/- per annum and adding 40% (i.e. ~24,000/-)
towards his future prospects, his total earnings would come to
~84,000/-. Keeping in view that he has left behind widow and
two minor sons and in view of the dependency he must be
th
contributing 1/5 on his own upkeep and maintenance so his
dependency comes to ~67,200 (84000 x 4/5). More so, with the
passage of time, children would grow up and their
requirements in life on account of education etc. would also
increase and keeping in view the age of Harpal Singh deceased
multiplier of 17 is appropriate. Therefore, the amount of
compensation comes to ~11,42,400/- (67200 x 17). As it was a
case of contributory negligence, his dependents shall be
entitled to 50% of the compensation i.e. {5,71,200/-.
Besides this, in case of both the deceased an amount of
{50,000/- each is awarded on account of loss of consortium,
{ 20,000/- each for expenses of funeral and last rites and a
sum of~ 50,000/- each on account of loss of estate.
Resultantly, the total amount of compensation in case of
deceased Gautam comes to {5,52,000/- whereas in case of
8
deceased Harpal Singh the total compensation is
{ 6,91,200/-.”
15. The question posed by the appellants is with respect to the
applicability of principle of contributory negligence.
16. The MACT has held that the accident in question was a case
of contributory negligence relying solely upon the testimony of
Kulwinder Singh (PW5) who deposed that the accident took place
in the middle of the road. The said finding has been upheld by
the High Court in the impugned order. However, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the same deserves to be set aside as the
High Court has committed a serious error in not considering the
testimony of PW-4 Suresh Kumar who was also one of the eye-
witnesses apart from PW-5 Kulwinder Singh.
17. The site plan of the said accident which was prepared by the
investigating agency has been brought on record before this court
for the first time. It was submitted by the petitioners herein that
the same was not placed before the MACT as the charge-sheet
was never filed since the accused Gulzar had passed away before
the filing of the charge-sheet. The objection raised on behalf of
respondent no. 6 to the production of site plan at this stage is in
our view without merit. It must be kept in mind that the
9
provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in
accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of
procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in
such cases is summary in nature. Hence, the site plan is taken
on record by allowing the appellant to file additional document.
18. A careful perusal of the site plan shows that point ‘A’ is
shown as the place where the accident took place and where the
motorcycle was found lying. Point ‘A’ is on the left side of the road
going from North to South. Point 'B' in the site plan denotes the
place where Alto car was found lying. Point ‘B’ is on the extreme
right side of the same road. Point 'C' in the site plan marks the
place where dead body of the deceased persons were found lying
i.e. in the field of Ramchari S/o Ratiram. Point ‘C’ is on the
extreme left side of the same road. The distance of point 'B' from
point 'A' is about 62 feet, and of point 'C' about 18 feet.
19. 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
10
rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh only, driver of Alto car
and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased
Gautam.
20. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that
the High Court has erred in upholding the application of the
principle of contributory negligence and thereby deducting the
amount of compensation entitled to the deceased persons by
50%. Therefore, this court is inclined to enhance the amount of
compensation by amount which was deducted by the High Court
on account of contributory negligence. Thus, the total amount of
compensation to which deceased Gautam is entitled to is Rs.
9,84,000/- [Rs. 5,52,000 (compensation calculated by the High
Court) + Rs. 4,32,000/- (Compensation deducted by High Court
on account of contributory negligence)]. Furthermore, the total
amount of compensation to which deceased Harpal is entitled to
is Rs. 12,62,400/- [Rs. 6,91,200/- (compensation calculated by
the High Court) + Rs. 5,71,200/- (Compensation deducted by
High Court on account of contributory negligence)]. The said
compensation shall carry interest at 9% per annum as awarded
by the High Court.
11
21. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed and
disposed of accordingly. The balance amounts to be deposited
with the MACT with interest within a period of six weeks from
today.
22. No order as to cost.
........................................J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 19, 2025.
12
2025 INSC 741
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). ____________OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 993-994 of 2024)
RAJO DEVI & ANR. ETC. Appellant(s)……
VERSUS
MANJEET KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s)…….
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order
dated 27.02.2020 in FAO No. 1905 of 2014 (O&M) and 8197 of
2014 (O&M) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had
partially upheld the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (‘MACT’ for short) to the extent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.05.20
18:16:02 IST
Reason:
of application of principle of contributory negligence.
1
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2009, a
newly purchased motorcycle bearing chassis No. S107RP602050
(insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited (Respondent no. 5 herein) was being driven by the
deceased Gautam who happened to be a bachelor aged around 22
years (son of claimants, namely Rajo Devi (appellant no. 1 herein)
and Prem Chand (appellant no. 2 herein) and on which his
brother-in-law, deceased Harpal Singh (his dependants are
Harjinder Kaur, Babu Singh and Noordeep (appellant nos. 3, 4 &
5 herein respectively) aged about 30 years, was riding pillion.
While they were going on the main road in the area of Police
Station Kaithal, an Alto car bearing registration No. HR08-J-3157
(insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limited
(Respondent no. 6 herein)) being driven by Gulzar Singh and in
which one Kulwinder Singh (since injured) was sitting next to the
car driver, came from the opposite side and a head-on collision
took place between the two vehicles, leading to death of both the
motorcyclists and injuries to Kulwinder Singh. The owner and
driver of alto car, namely, Gulzar Singh, died after sometime due
to some other reason and was represented by his LRs, namely
2
Manjeet Kaur, Virender Singh and Sarabjeet Singh (Respondents
no. 1, 2 & 3 herein respectively) before the Trial Court.
Accordingly, amongst other petitions, two petitions were filed
4.
by the petitioners herein before the MACT, Kaithal. The Ld.
Tribunal vide its order dated 03.06.2011 opined that the accident
in question was a clear-cut case of contributory negligence and
accordingly, the dependants of deceased Gautam were held
entitled to Rs. 86,000/- which was 50% of total compensation of
Rs. 1,72,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of
deceased Gautam as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering
him as a casual labourer and applying the multiplier of 9.
Similarly, the dependants of deceased Harpal Singh were held
entitled to Rs. 2,23,000/- which was 50% of total compensation
of Rs. 4,23,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of
deceased Harpal as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering the
minimum wages and applying the multiplier of 17.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of MACT an
appeal was preferred by the appellants herein claiming
enhancement of compensation amount and the issue of
contributory negligence be decided in favour of the appellants
herein. The High Court vide the impugned common order has
3
partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of
compensation payable to the dependants of deceased Gautam
and Harpal Singh by assessing their monthly income as Rs.
4,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier
of 18 and 17 respectively, thereby arriving at total compensation
of Rs. 5,52,000/- in case of deceased Gautam and Rs. 6,91,200/-
in case of deceased Harpal Singh. The High Court has also
enhanced the interest from 7% p.a to 9% p.a. However, the High
Court has upheld the applicability of the principle of contributory
negligence.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the High Court the appellants herein have preferred
the present appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous in not considering the testimony of
other eyewitness namely, Suresh Kumar (PW4) and relying upon
the testimony of Kulwinder Singh (PW 5) only. It was further
submitted that the principle of contributory negligence has been
wrongly applied by the High Court in ignorance of the testimony
of PW4 who had deposed that deceased Gautam was riding his
motorcycle at a normal speed on his left side when the Alto car
4
came from opposite side in a high speed and was very rashly and
negligently driven.
It was next submitted that the High Court erred in law by
8.
differentiating in the income of deceased Gautam and pillion
rider Harpal. The income of the deceased Gautam has been
assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month whereas that of deceased
Harpal has been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month despite the
fact that they both were in the same profession i.e. running a hair
cutting salon and were hair dressers. The differentiation in
assessment of income of both the deceased is irrational and
without any basis.
9. It was further submitted that the site plan of the accident
prepared by the investigating agency, which was not in the
knowledge of the petitioners herein was never brought on record
and that the same would show that the accident took place
because of the negligence of the driver of Alto car only.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.
5 submitted that deceased Gautam, who was the driver of the
motorcycle in question, was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence. It was submitted that the accident in question
had taken place due to the sole negligence and rashness of
5
Gulzar Singh, who was the driver of Alto car. It was further
submitted that as the motorcycle in question was not the
offending vehicle, respondent no. 5 is not liable to pay any
compensation.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submitted
that the accident in question was a head-on collision and
accordingly, the driver of both the vehicles need to be held
responsible as they had contributed equally to the accident. With
regard to the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that
the same has been awarded at higher side by the High Court in
the impugned order. It was further submitted that the site plan
cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage before this court.
12. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of a respondent
nos. 1 to 3 herein who are the legal heirs of deceased Gulzar
Singh (driver of Alto car) and respondent no. 4 herein (owner of
the accidental motorcycle).
13. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides at length
and perused the relevant documents placed on record.
14. The High Court while upholding the application of principle
of contributory negligence and assessing the income of the
deceased persons has observed as under:
6
“ The testimony of Kulwinder Singh is the most important one
as no other eye-witness to this incident has been examined by
any of the sides. Being an injured eye-witness, is certainly a
stamp witness in the realm of evidence. In his cross-
examination Kulwinder Singh as PWS has admitted the fact
that the Alto car was being driven at a speed of 60 kilometres
per hour and the accident has occurred in middle of the road
and it was a head on collision. The contentions of the counsel
representing the insurance company that it is a clear-cut case
of contributory negligence could not be displaced by any of the
counsel representing the other side. Learned counsel for the
insurance company has placed on record 'Bijoy Kumar Dugar
vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & others' 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 590 ,
where in a similar proposition, the Supreme Court has held
that where the vehicles had a head-on collision the drivers of
both vehicles need to be responsible to have contributed equally
to the accident. In the present case, in the light of the fact that
there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court needs to hold it
so and the findings drawn by the impugned award to that
effect need to be upheld.
In case of claim by the parents of deceased Gautam, it is
admitted that the deceased was a bachelor aged around 22
years. Though much fanfare has been sought to be raised over
the factum that he was not holding a valid driving license, but
the same has not been proved by the insurance company on
whom the onus lay, and rather the driving license of driver of
the Alto car Guljar Singh has been brought on record as Ex.Rl,
registration certificate of the Alto car as Ex.R2 and the
insurance police as Ex.R3. Learned counsel for the insurer of
the Alto car fairly concedes that at the time of accident the car
was under insurance cover. No avocation of deceased Gautam
and Harpal Singh has been proved. It is also not in any
manner displaced that they were running hair-cutting saloon
and were hair-dressers. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed
the earnings of Gautam and Harpal to be of casual labourers.
Keeping in view the age of Gautam and the fact that he
happens to be young unmarried grown up son of aged parents,
who were totally dependent and that Harpal Singh too was
young aged around 30 years with a widow and two minor
children as dependents and keeping in view that the factum of
their avocation is not denied though there is no proof of their
earnings, this Court taking into consideration the objective of
the Act being of welfare nature, feels it expedient to hold that
7
by all likelihood Gautam must be earning~ 4,000/- per month
and Harpal Singh ~ 5,000/- per month. The same is also
commensurate with the family strength they were looking after
in such days of escalating prices of essential commodities and
cost of living. Accordingly, the annual income of deceased
Gautam comes to ~48,000/- and that of deceased Harpal
Singh~ 60,000/-.
As regards future prospects are concerned, the dependants of
deceased Gautam shall be entitled to 50% of his annual
earnings i.e. ~24,000/- and thus his total income after addition
of future prospects comes to ~ 72,000/-. Keeping in view that
Gautam was a bachelor and must be contributing 1/3rd on his
own. upkeep and maintenance, and has only two aged parents
as dependents therefore, deduction of 1/3rd on his personal
expenses and maintenance is appropriate and as such his
dependency comes to ~ 48,000/.,. (72000 x 2/3). In the light of
age of the deceased and that of his parents, multiplier of 18 is
applied whereby the compensation comes to ~ 8,64,000/-
(48000 x 18). Since it is a proven case of contributory
negligence and Gautam was driving the motorcycle and has
equally contributed to this accident, therefore the claimants in
his case shall be entitled to 50% of the compensation i.e.
~4,32,000/-. Taking the earnings of deceased Harpal Singh to
be ~60,000/- per annum and adding 40% (i.e. ~24,000/-)
towards his future prospects, his total earnings would come to
~84,000/-. Keeping in view that he has left behind widow and
two minor sons and in view of the dependency he must be
th
contributing 1/5 on his own upkeep and maintenance so his
dependency comes to ~67,200 (84000 x 4/5). More so, with the
passage of time, children would grow up and their
requirements in life on account of education etc. would also
increase and keeping in view the age of Harpal Singh deceased
multiplier of 17 is appropriate. Therefore, the amount of
compensation comes to ~11,42,400/- (67200 x 17). As it was a
case of contributory negligence, his dependents shall be
entitled to 50% of the compensation i.e. {5,71,200/-.
Besides this, in case of both the deceased an amount of
{50,000/- each is awarded on account of loss of consortium,
{ 20,000/- each for expenses of funeral and last rites and a
sum of~ 50,000/- each on account of loss of estate.
Resultantly, the total amount of compensation in case of
deceased Gautam comes to {5,52,000/- whereas in case of
8
deceased Harpal Singh the total compensation is
{ 6,91,200/-.”
15. The question posed by the appellants is with respect to the
applicability of principle of contributory negligence.
16. The MACT has held that the accident in question was a case
of contributory negligence relying solely upon the testimony of
Kulwinder Singh (PW5) who deposed that the accident took place
in the middle of the road. The said finding has been upheld by
the High Court in the impugned order. However, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the same deserves to be set aside as the
High Court has committed a serious error in not considering the
testimony of PW-4 Suresh Kumar who was also one of the eye-
witnesses apart from PW-5 Kulwinder Singh.
17. The site plan of the said accident which was prepared by the
investigating agency has been brought on record before this court
for the first time. It was submitted by the petitioners herein that
the same was not placed before the MACT as the charge-sheet
was never filed since the accused Gulzar had passed away before
the filing of the charge-sheet. The objection raised on behalf of
respondent no. 6 to the production of site plan at this stage is in
our view without merit. It must be kept in mind that the
9
provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in
accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of
procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in
such cases is summary in nature. Hence, the site plan is taken
on record by allowing the appellant to file additional document.
18. A careful perusal of the site plan shows that point ‘A’ is
shown as the place where the accident took place and where the
motorcycle was found lying. Point ‘A’ is on the left side of the road
going from North to South. Point 'B' in the site plan denotes the
place where Alto car was found lying. Point ‘B’ is on the extreme
right side of the same road. Point 'C' in the site plan marks the
place where dead body of the deceased persons were found lying
i.e. in the field of Ramchari S/o Ratiram. Point ‘C’ is on the
extreme left side of the same road. The distance of point 'B' from
point 'A' is about 62 feet, and of point 'C' about 18 feet.
19. 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
10
rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh only, driver of Alto car
and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased
Gautam.
20. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that
the High Court has erred in upholding the application of the
principle of contributory negligence and thereby deducting the
amount of compensation entitled to the deceased persons by
50%. Therefore, this court is inclined to enhance the amount of
compensation by amount which was deducted by the High Court
on account of contributory negligence. Thus, the total amount of
compensation to which deceased Gautam is entitled to is Rs.
9,84,000/- [Rs. 5,52,000 (compensation calculated by the High
Court) + Rs. 4,32,000/- (Compensation deducted by High Court
on account of contributory negligence)]. Furthermore, the total
amount of compensation to which deceased Harpal is entitled to
is Rs. 12,62,400/- [Rs. 6,91,200/- (compensation calculated by
the High Court) + Rs. 5,71,200/- (Compensation deducted by
High Court on account of contributory negligence)]. The said
compensation shall carry interest at 9% per annum as awarded
by the High Court.
11
21. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed and
disposed of accordingly. The balance amounts to be deposited
with the MACT with interest within a period of six weeks from
today.
22. No order as to cost.
........................................J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 19, 2025.
12