An earlier collision does not absolve a later negligent driver of liability for fatal consequences.

On 28 December 2008, a bus struck the Toyota Innova in which Rakesh Bagga was travelling. After the vehicles stopped and the occupants got out, a truck collided with the bus, which was propelled into the Innova; Bagga was caught between the vehicles and later died.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the claimants ₹1,43,92,000 with 9% interest, finding composite negligence and apportioning liability 75% to the truck and 25% to the bus.

The insurers appealed, disputing the apportionment; the truck’s insurer also challenged the award of 50% future prospects.

The claimants sought release of the remaining deposited compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of composite negligence—75% to the truck and 25% to the bus—warranted interference

2. Whether the award of 50% towards future prospects warranted interference

3. Whether the remaining deposited compensation should be released to the deceased’s wife and daughter in a lump sum

The Court applied the tort principle that a defendant must take the victim as found (“the eggshell skull” rule): a prior accident or the victim’s resulting presence at the scene does not excuse a later negligent driver from liability for the consequences of that driver’s own conduct.

It also assessed the insurers’ competing arguments by reference to the evidence of negligence and causation in the circumstances of the collision. No statute or precedent is expressly cited in the judgment.

As to future prospects, the Court considered the deceased’s employment history, promotions, and regular increments.

The Court found that the Innova had slowed because of a traffic jam, visibility was clear, and the bus’s initial impact caused only minor injuries. Those facts supported the Tribunal’s finding of negligence by the bus, but the truck driver’s failure to notice the stationary vehicles and people around them independently evidenced negligence.

The fatal consequence of the truck’s impact did not absolve its driver merely because the bus had initiated the sequence of events; the Tribunal’s 75:25 apportionment therefore did not warrant interference.

The Court also upheld 50% future prospects because the deceased had been employed since 2002 and had received promotions and increments.

The Court directed the MACT to release the remaining deposited amounts, with accrued interest, to the deceased’s wife and daughter in their designated accounts as a lump sum.

Pending applications were rendered infructuous, and any statutory deposit was to be refunded only if the deposit order had been complied with.