Rear-end collision warranted 10% contributory negligence for the following driver’s failure to maintain safe distance.

On 26 April 2022, Ashwin was driving car No. TN 64 W 3006 from Chennai towards Madurai with his wife Sivabackiya and their minor children Rihanna and Ryan.

Near Bukkathurai X Road, the car struck the rear of lorry No. TN 25 C 0999, which allegedly stopped suddenly without signal.

Ashwin and infant Ryan died, while Sivabackiya and Rihanna suffered grievous injuries.

The claimants filed four petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai: for Ashwin’s death, Ryan’s death, and the injuries suffered by Sivabackiya and Rihanna.

The Tribunal held the lorry driver negligent and awarded Rs.1,71,75,900 for Ashwin’s death, Rs.7,31,800 to Sivabackiya, Rs.5,86,700 to Rihanna, and Rs.6,87,000 for Ryan’s death.

United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the lorry, challenged the awards under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether Ashwin contributed to the accident by failing to maintain a sufficient distance and reasonable speed, warranting a reduction for contributory negligence?

Whether Sivabackiya’s subsequent remarriage disentitled her from being treated as a dependent of the deceased Ashwin?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.5,00,000 and Rs.3,00,000 respectively towards disability compensation for Sivabackiya and Rihanna, despite the insurer’s objection regarding the absence of disability certificates?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification in the connected claim petitions?

The appeals were filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principles of contributory negligence, under which compensation may be reduced where the claimant or deceased has contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

For fatal-accident compensation, it relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, concerning the appropriate multiplier and deduction for personal expenses, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, concerning future prospects and conventional heads of compensation.

For the death of the infant, it applied Kishan Gopal v. Lala, together with Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

On dependency after remarriage, it considered Anju Mukhi v. Satish K. Bhatia and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bridget Irene v. Dincy Devassy, but held that the peculiar facts required rejection of the insurer’s contention.

The Court also considered Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding the duty to maintain a safe distance between vehicles travelling in the same direction.

The Court found that the FIR and final report attributed the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, and PW2 supported the claimants’ version that the lorry had stopped suddenly without warning.

However, PW2 also stated that Ashwin’s car was approximately seven metres behind the lorry.

Applying the principle that a following driver must maintain a sufficient distance and reasonable speed, the Court held that Ashwin could have controlled the car even if the lorry had braked suddenly.

It therefore attributed 10% contributory negligence to Ashwin, while declining to impose the 50% deduction sought by the insurer.

The Court rejected the remarriage argument because, at the time of the accident, Sivabackiya was a 26-year-old wife travelling with Ashwin and their two very young children; Ashwin and the infant child died in the same accident.

In these exceptional circumstances, the Court held that her remarriage did not defeat the dependency claim.

It further upheld the disability awards to Sivabackiya and Rihanna, noting their grievous injuries, hospitalisation, medical expenses, and treatment records, and found no infirmity in the amounts awarded under the various heads.

Accordingly, the Court reduced only the loss-of-dependency component in Ashwin’s claim by 10%.

The original loss of dependency of Rs.1,69,56,901 was reduced by Rs.16,95,690, resulting in total compensation of Rs.1,54,80,211, rounded to Rs.1,54,80,200.

The Court dismissed CMA Nos.2599, 2600 and 2602 of 2026, thereby confirming the awards for Sivabackiya’s injuries, Rihanna’s injuries, and Ryan’s death.

The Tribunal’s directions regarding apportionment and disbursement were maintained, and there was no order as to costs.