Bus Entered Oncoming Lane While Overtaking; Lorry Still 20% Negligent For Not Avoiding Crash: Madras HC

On 18 September 2016, a State Transport Corporation bus carrying the claimants attempted to overtake another vehicle on the Karur–Coimbatore Main Road and collided with an oncoming tipper lorry insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd.

The claimants or the deceased passengers’ legal representatives filed separate compensation petitions against the Corporation, the lorry owner and the insurer.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found both drivers negligent, apportioning 80% of the negligence to the bus driver and 20% to the lorry driver, and awarded compensation in the three claims.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally challenging the 20% finding against the lorry driver; the quantum was not seriously challenged.

The appeals were brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for an appeal against a motor accident claims award.

The Court applied the principles of reasonable care and contributory negligence: an oncoming driver must take reasonable steps to avoid a collision when the danger becomes apparent and circumstances permit, while the driver whose conduct principally created the danger may bear the greater share of negligence.

The Court also considered whether the lorry driver had a “last opportunity to avoid the collision.”

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court considered the injured witnesses’ evidence, the FIR, other contemporaneous materials and the accident sketch.

It accepted that the bus driver created the principal danger by entering the oncoming lane while overtaking, but found that the lorry driver could have reduced speed and, if reasonably possible, moved further left; the sketch indicated sufficient space to do so.

The lorry driver’s failure to take those steps supported a finding of contributory negligence.

The Court held that the evidence supported the Tribunal’s 80:20 apportionment; neither the lorry driver’s non-examination nor the insurer’s argument that the bus alone was negligent warranted interference.

It directed that any remaining award amount be deposited by the insurer and the Transport Corporation, after credit for amounts already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimants and pro forma respondents could withdraw deposited amounts in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.