Foggy Head-On Crash: P&H HC Upholds 50:50 Negligence Split, Raises Injured Driver’s Compensation To ₹1.25 Lakh

On 13 December 1998, Ashwani Kumar was driving a Tata-407 when it collided head-on with a tractor-trolley near Babain.

He sustained multiple fractures and other injuries; a medical board assessed his permanent disability at 15%.

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found both drivers equally negligent and awarded ₹90,000, including ₹60,000 for medical expenses and hospitalisation and ₹30,000 for disability.

The insurer of the Tata-407 appealed against its 50% liability, while Ashwani Kumar appealed for enhancement.

A claimant’s contributory negligence may be accounted for by apportioning responsibility between the drivers on the evidence and circumstances of the accident.

In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation must be assessed on the evidence of injury, treatment, expenses, disability and its consequences.

The Court considered Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550, which concerned a claim under Section 163A by the legal representatives of a person who had borrowed and was driving the insured vehicle; the Court treated that decision as distinguishable on its facts and legal context.

The Tribunal’s equal apportionment of negligence was supported by the foggy conditions, the head-on collision and the absence of cogent evidence establishing which vehicle crossed onto the wrong side or was travelling at excessive speed.

The insurer therefore failed to show grounds for disturbing the 50:50 finding, and Ramkhiladi did not alter the result because it concerned a different statutory claim and factual context.

On compensation, the injuries, surgery and hospitalisation justified separate awards of ₹25,000 for pain and suffering and ₹10,000 for special diet and transportation.

The Court retained the existing awards for medical expenses and disability because the surviving record did not justify further enhancement or establish functional disability or corresponding loss of future earning capacity.

The additional ₹35,000 was made subject to interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The insurers’ liability remained divided equally, with each insurer to contribute an additional ₹17,500 plus proportionate interest.

The insurer’s appeal was dismissed.