A Tribunal Cannot Impose Full Liability After Finding Contributory Negligence.

The claimants, legal representatives of the deceased Anandaraj, sought compensation for his death in a collision involving his two-wheeler and a State Transport Corporation bus on 10 June 2017.

Their case was that the deceased was overtaking the bus when its driver suddenly turned right without signalling.

The Corporation alleged that the deceased’s negligent overtaking caused the accident.

The Tribunal found negligence on the part of both the bus driver and the deceased, but nevertheless imposed the entire liability on the Corporation and awarded Rs.14,50,800.

The Corporation appealed, principally challenging that inconsistency; it did not seriously contest the quantum.

Whether the deceased rider contributed to the accident by attempting to overtake the bus and, if so, what share of negligence should be attributed to him.

Whether the Tribunal, having found contributory negligence, could impose the entire liability on the Corporation.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court may consider an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 173.

In determining negligence in a motor accident claim, a criminal acquittal does not conclusively determine civil liability because the standards of proof differ; relevant evidence from the criminal case may nevertheless be considered for its evidentiary value.

Where a claimant’s own negligence contributes to the accident, that contributory negligence must be reflected in the apportionment of liability; a finding of contributory negligence cannot be left without effect while the entire liability is imposed on the other party.

The claimants’ own pleading established that the deceased was attempting to overtake the bus, and the bus driver’s evidence supported that account.

The physical evidence of damage to the bus’s right side lent support to the driver’s version, though it did not absolve him: a bus driver turning right was expected to exercise due care and give an appropriate signal.

The Court therefore found negligence on both sides.

It also held that the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence was inconsistent with its decision to impose the entire liability on the Corporation.

Considering the evidence and circumstances, the Court attributed 15% contributory negligence to the deceased rider.

Interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The award was modified as to apportionment of liability, with no order as to costs.