A head-on collision alone does not establish contributory negligence; negligence must be determined from the evidence.

The deceased was driving a Maruti van when it collided head-on with a GSRTC bus, resulting in his death.

His parents and legal representatives sought compensation, alleging that the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹11,00,000 with 9% annual interest and held the bus driver solely negligent.

GSRTC appealed, contending that the deceased had driven on the wrong side and was contributorily negligent.

The claimants relied on the panchnama and the bus driver’s testimony, including evidence that the bus dragged the van after impact and that the driver reported the accident only two days later.

1. Whether the deceased’s conduct amounted to contributory negligence in causing the head-on collision

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the GSRTC bus driver solely negligent and fastening complete liability on him

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Applying Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmsey Kunvargi Tak, contributory negligence requires an act or omission by the claimant that materially contributed to the damage and amounts to a failure to take reasonable care; the inquiry is fact-specific.

Under Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, negligence is assessed in light of all the circumstances, and where both parties’ negligence contributes to the damage, liability may be apportioned; a traffic-rule breach alone does not establish sole responsibility.

The Court noted that a post-accident panchnama may not always establish the vehicles’ positions at the moment of collision.

However, in this case, the bus driver admitted that the bus dragged the van approximately 15 feet after impact and that the road was straight, with visibility for about 100 feet.

The driver’s failure to control the bus after collision, together with his departure from the scene and delayed reporting, supported the finding that he was solely negligent.

The record did not establish that the deceased’s conduct materially contributed to the accident; accordingly, there was no basis to apportion negligence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the award of ₹11,00,000 with 9% annual interest was confirmed.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, including any amount held in a fixed deposit, after verification and in accordance with due procedure.