90:10 contributory negligence apportionment upheld between overtaking bus and suddenly turning tempo

On 6 September 2006, Sultan Singh Gurjar was driving a loading tempo bearing registration No. GJ-18-U-4316 after loading oil tins. Near Ghago Cross Road while proceeding towards Gojariya, the tempo was hit from behind by an ST bus bearing registration No. GJ-18-V-9255, allegedly driven negligently by the respondent’s driver. Sultan Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Mehsana, where he was declared dead; an FIR was registered at Kadi Police Station.

His widow, children and parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 with interest. They alleged that the deceased, aged 36, was earning Rs. 8,000–9,000 per month as a loading-tempo driver.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the negligence of the ST bus driver at 90% and contributory negligence of the deceased at 10%, awarding Rs. 11,21,000 with 7.5% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenged the award, contending that a higher degree of negligence ought to have been attributed to the deceased. The claimants filed a cross-objection seeking removal of the 10% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the inter se contributory negligence at 90% against the ST bus driver and 10% against the deceased tempo driver?

Whether the compensation award of Rs. 11,21,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum, required interference in appeal or cross-objection?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act over the award passed in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act.

The governing principle applied was that compensation in a motor accident claim must reflect the parties’ respective negligence where the evidence establishes contributory negligence; the Tribunal is required to determine the inter se share of negligence on the basis of the pleadings, oral evidence and surrounding circumstances.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that testimony of an interested witness must be assessed cautiously, particularly where it is unsupported by consistent pleadings or other reliable evidence.

The Court noted that the accident involved a collision between the loading tempo and the ST bus and that the bus had struck the tempo from behind.

Although the Tribunal found that the deceased had suddenly turned right, thereby contributing to the accident, it also found that the ST bus driver was attempting to overtake the tempo on a road only 10 feet wide.

The bus driver had not filed a written statement denying the claim, and his subsequent deposition on behalf of the Corporation was treated as that of an interested witness.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the Tribunal had properly balanced the evidence by attributing 90% negligence to the bus driver and 10% to the deceased.

Neither the Corporation’s contention for a higher apportionment against the deceased nor the claimants’ request to eliminate contributory negligence was supported by sufficient grounds for appellate interference.

Accordingly, the First Appeal and the Cross-Objection were dismissed, the Tribunal’s judgment and award of Rs. 11,21,000 with 7.5% interest were confirmed, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Tribunal.