Head-on collision does not establish contributory negligence absent cogent evidence of the claimant’s failure to exercise reasonable care.

On 19 May 2007 at approximately 4:00 a.m., Subhash, his wife Manisha, and their daughter Kajal were travelling from Aligarh to Delhi in an Indica car. Near Darau More, the car collided with a bus owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). Manisha died in the accident and Kajal sustained grievous injuries.

Subhash testified that the bus was being driven at high speed and in a zigzag manner before it rammed into the car. An FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was filed against the bus driver.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, awarded compensation of ₹9,29,116 with interest at 7.5% per annum by award dated 3 August 2013. UPSRTC appealed, contending principally that, since the accident was a head-on collision, contributory negligence ought to have been attributed to the car driver or deceased occupants.

Whether a head-on collision between the bus and the Indica car, by itself, justified a finding of contributory negligence or an automatic apportionment of liability at 50:50?

Whether UPSRTC established, by cogent evidence, any negligent act or omission on the part of the deceased Manisha or the occupants of the car which materially contributed to the accident?

Whether the Tribunal was justified, on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, in fastening liability upon the UPSRTC bus driver?

Contributory negligence requires proof that the claimant or victim failed to exercise reasonable care and that such failure materially contributed to the accident or resulting harm; it cannot be presumed merely from the occurrence of a head-on collision.

Under Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, contributory negligence concerns the claimant’s own negligent conduct and permits a just and equitable apportionment only where such negligence is established.

T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan distinguishes contributory negligence from composite negligence and holds that liability cannot automatically be divided equally between the vehicles.

Usha Rajkhowa v. Paramount Industries places the burden of proving contributory negligence on the party alleging it.

Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan holds that the post-accident position of vehicles, without direct or corroborative evidence, cannot establish negligence in a head-on collision.

Kiran v. Sajjan Singh similarly rejects an assumption of contributory negligence where there is no evidentiary proof of negligence by the claimant.

The Court also relied on Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reiterating that the party alleging contributory negligence must establish it through cogent material.

Negligence before the MACT is determined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

The Court held that the UPSRTC’s reliance on Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta was misplaced because that decision did not create a rule that every head-on collision entails equal contributory negligence; it merely upheld an evidence-based finding on the facts of that case.

Here, Subhash’s testimony specifically attributed rash and negligent driving to the bus driver, stating that the bus was driven in a zigzag manner and struck the car with such force that it was completely bent.

UPSRTC did not cross-examine Subhash despite having the opportunity to do so, and the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet implicated the bus driver.

Although the bus driver offered a contrary version that the car had come onto the wrong side of the road, UPSRTC produced no cogent evidence establishing negligence by Manisha or the car occupants.

Applying the evidentiary burden governing contributory negligence, the Court found that a mere head-on collision and the competing version of the bus driver were insufficient to justify any deduction or apportionment of liability.

It held that UPSRTC failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased or the car occupants, and therefore no reduction in compensation was warranted.

The compensation award of ₹9,29,116 with interest at 7.5% per annum was maintained.

The balance amount deposited with the Registrar General, after release of 70% pursuant to the earlier interim order, was directed to be released to the claimants as a lump sum upon liquidation of the FDRs.