Contributory negligence cannot be inferred merely from involvement of two vehicles in an accident.

On 01.06.2014, the deceased, Jagat Sonowal, was driving a Ford Figo on National Highway No. 37 with his wife, Rumi Baruah Sonowal, and their two minor daughters travelling in the vehicle. Near Dichang Rajabari, a Tata Indica allegedly hit the Ford Figo from the rear right side, causing it to fall into a ditch. Jagat Sonowal died in the accident, while his wife sustained injuries.

The claimants instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for his death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that both drivers were negligent and assessed total compensation at Rs. 67,12,000, but directed the insurer of the Tata Indica to pay only 50%, namely Rs. 33,57,000, with 6% interest, because the deceased was also found contributorily negligent. The widow and her minor daughters challenged the finding of contributory negligence under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased, who was driving the Ford Figo, merely because his vehicle was involved in the accident?

Whether the insurer of the Tata Indica was liable to pay the entire compensation of Rs. 67,12,000, rather than only 50% of the assessed compensation?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Section 166, under which the claim for compensation was instituted.

The governing principle of contributory negligence is that a deduction from the compensation payable to the claimants must be founded on credible evidence establishing negligence on the part of the deceased; contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely from the involvement of two vehicles. A speed of 80 kilometres per hour on a national highway, without evidence of a specific speed restriction or other rash conduct, does not by itself establish negligence.

The Court also considered the authorities cited by both sides, including Godawari Devi Sarma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bithika Bairagi, Smt. Bina Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Parul Hazarika, and Bijoy Kumar Duggal v. Bidyadhar Dutta.

The Tribunal had attributed negligence to the deceased primarily because the Ford Figo was also involved in the collision. The High Court found this approach unsustainable. The uncontroverted testimony of the widow and another eyewitness established that the Tata Indica struck the Ford Figo from behind.

The Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports showed damage to the rear right side of the Ford Figo and predominantly to the left side of the Tata Indica, corroborating the eyewitness account. The Court held that the absence of damage to the exact rear portion of the Ford Figo did not disprove a rear-side impact, particularly when the vehicle was struck at its rear right side. The opinion of the insurer’s witness that the accident could not have occurred in that manner was rejected as inconsistent with the other evidence.

Further, driving at 80 kilometres per hour on a national highway was not, in itself, rash or negligent, and there was no evidence that the deceased had failed to take reasonable precautions or that such failure caused the accident.

The charge-sheet, eyewitness evidence, and other materials established negligence by the Tata Indica driver, but no credible evidence demonstrated contributory negligence by the deceased. Since the Tribunal’s assessment of the total compensation had not been challenged by the insurer, the entire amount was held payable.

As 50% had already been paid, the insurer was directed to deposit the remaining amount before the High Court Registry within six weeks, for disbursement to the claimants after verification. The record was ordered to be returned to the Tribunal.