Entry into a BRTS lane may constitute contributory negligence, but not establish the deceased’s sole negligence.

On 11 December 2017, Kamlesh Babulal Choradiya was riding his motorcycle to a medical store near Puna Patiya, Surat, when it collided with GSRTC bus No. GJ-18-Y-5565 near Bhaktidham Bus Stop. He sustained fatal injuries and died.

His legal heirs filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 99 of 2018 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹10,00,000 with interest and costs.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the deceased was solely negligent because he had entered the dedicated BRTS corridor through an opening intended for pedestrians.

The Tribunal did not treat the bus’s presence in the BRTS lane as negligence, noting that construction on the main road had diverted the bus to that route.

The deceased’s legal heirs challenged that decision under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 100% negligence to the deceased merely because he entered the dedicated BRTS corridor through a pedestrian opening and collided with the GSRTC bus.

Whether, on the facts of the case, the deceased’s conduct could at most constitute contributory negligence rather than sole negligence disentitling the claimants from compensation.

Whether the claim petition was required to be restored and reconsidered afresh by the Tribunal in accordance with law.

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award or order of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that a claimant’s possible negligence does not automatically justify dismissal of a motor accident claim where the evidence may support contributory negligence; attribution of 100% negligence must be justified by the facts and evidence.

The Court also kept in view the beneficial object and purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act in adjudicating claims for compensation.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had been influenced by the fact that the deceased entered the BRTS corridor through an opening used by pedestrians.

However, the Tribunal failed to sufficiently account for the fact that the vehicle in the corridor was a GSRTC bus and not a designated BRTS bus.

The bus’s presence in the corridor, even if explained by construction on the main road, could not by itself establish the deceased’s exclusive responsibility.

On the material considered, the deceased’s conduct could, at the highest, give rise to contributory negligence; it could not justify a finding of 100% negligence without a fuller assessment of the circumstances and evidence.

The Court therefore held that the claim required fresh adjudication rather than outright dismissal.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 21 August 2023 dismissing Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 99 of 2018 was quashed and set aside.

The claim petition was restored to its original proceedings, and all parties were permitted to lead further evidence if required.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, preferably within three months of receiving the High Court’s judgment, without being influenced by its earlier order or the High Court’s observations.

The record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Tribunal.