2002 JTR(SC) 765
2002 ACJ 1720 ; 2002 AIR(SC) 2864 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 3257 ; 2002 49 AllLR 210 ; 2002 4 AllMR(SC) 260 ; 2002 4 AWC 3251 ; 2002 3 BBCJ(SC) 42 ; 2002 3 BLJR 2451 ; 2002 4 CHN(SC) 33 ; 2002 4 CivLJ 615 ; 2002 3 CTC 633 ; 2002 DNJ 590 ; 2002 3 GLR 2763 ; 2002 3 JCR(SC) 83 ; 2002 3 JLJR(SC) 95 ; 2002 6 JT 380 ; 2003 1 KLT(SN) 34 ; 2002 3 MLJ 180 ; 2002 4 PLJR(SC) 30 ; 2002 3 PLR(SC) 467 ; 2002 3 RCR(Civ) 688 ; 2002 4 RLW(Raj) 580 ; 2002 5 Scale 493 ; 2002 6 SCC 455 ; 2002 SCC(Cri) 1355 ; 2002 2 UJ 1148 ; 2002 2 WBLR 780 ; 2002 1 WLC 756 ; 2002 AIRSCW 3257 ; 2002 3 LRI 769 ; 2002 3 LRI 773 ; 2002 4 CHN 33 ; 2002 49 ALR 210 ; 2003 KHC 225 ; 2002 5 Supreme 198
2002(5) Supreme 198
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
Umesh C. Banerjee and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri -Appellant
versus
Karmasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5436 of 1994
Decided on 5-8-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sunil Dogra, Advocate Ms. Syali Pathak, Advocate for M/s. Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.L. Nandwani, Vipin Nandwani, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where the total width of the tarred portion of the road was 22 feet and there were mud shoulders on either side having a width of three feet, car driver s failure to swevere to the extreme left side of the road when the offending truck from the opposite direction had come to the central portion of the road, did not amount to negligence. It would, if at all, only prove that the car driver had not shown extraordinary precaution.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : ., S.168
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions cited in this case establish the statutory framework governing compensation and liability in motor accident claims. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act pertains to the powers and procedures of authorities including the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in determining claims and compensation. The present case directly engages with this provision as the claimant, being the appellant, sought compensation under this Act, and the adjudicating authorities applied the principles laid down under this section to determine the quantum of compensation and apportionment of liability.
(B) The key legal principles discussed include the doctrine of contributory negligence, the standard of reasonable care expected of a plaintiff, the burden of proving contributory negligence, and the assessment of compensation for past and future loss of income. The court emphasized that contributory negligence requires a finding that the plaintiff's own act or omission materially contributed to the damage and that the standard of reasonable care is objective and fact-sensitive. The judgment also clarified that a plaintiff is not automatically contributorily negligent if, in a situation of sudden danger, they fail to adopt the optimal response.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was driving a car on a national highway when he collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction. The truck toppled over, and the appellant, his wife, and another friend sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for compensation in full. The High Court reduced the amount, finding 30% contributory negligence on the appellant's part and adjusting the compensation accordingly. The appellant challenged this reduction, arguing that the evidence did not support a finding of contributory negligence.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence did not establish contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. It observed that the road conditions, including a three-foot width of mud shoulder on the left, the truck coming into the central portion of the road, and the short reaction time, placed the appellant in a dilemma. The court held that the failure to swerve further left in the heat of the moment did not constitute negligence, especially since the truck driver had no countervailing evidence of the appellant's negligence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and restored the full compensation amount.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant was contributorily negligent; whether the reduction in compensation on that ground was legally sound; and whether the evidence supported the finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable care.
Ratio Decidendi:
Contributory negligence requires a finding that the plaintiff's own unreasonable act or omission materially contributed to the harm. In a sudden emergency, a plaintiff is not required to take the optimum precaution, and mere failure to do so does not amount to contributory negligence. Here, the evidence did not show any contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, and the High Court's finding was not supported by the material on record.
Result:
The appeal is allowed partly, and the appellant is entitled to the full compensation amount of Rs. 4,72,600 as originally awarded by the High Court, with no order as to costs.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions cited in this case establish the statutory framework governing compensation and liability in motor accident claims. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act pertains to the powers and procedures of authorities including the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in determining claims and compensation. The present case directly engages with this provision as the claimant, being the appellant, sought compensation under this Act, and the adjudicating authorities applied the principles laid down under this section to determine the quantum of compensation and apportionment of liability.
(B) The key legal principles discussed include the doctrine of contributory negligence, the standard of reasonable care expected of a plaintiff, the burden of proving contributory negligence, and the assessment of compensation for past and future loss of income. The court emphasized that contributory negligence requires a finding that the plaintiff's own act or omission materially contributed to the damage and that the standard of reasonable care is objective and fact-sensitive. The judgment also clarified that a plaintiff is not automatically contributorily negligent if, in a situation of sudden danger, they fail to adopt the optimal response.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was driving a car on a national highway when he collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction. The truck toppled over, and the appellant, his wife, and another friend sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for compensation in full. The High Court reduced the amount, finding 30% contributory negligence on the appellant's part and adjusting the compensation accordingly. The appellant challenged this reduction, arguing that the evidence did not support a finding of contributory negligence.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence did not establish contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. It observed that the road conditions, including a three-foot width of mud shoulder on the left, the truck coming into the central portion of the road, and the short reaction time, placed the appellant in a dilemma. The court held that the failure to swerve further left in the heat of the moment did not constitute negligence, especially since the truck driver had no countervailing evidence of the appellant's negligence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and restored the full compensation amount.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant was contributorily negligent; whether the reduction in compensation on that ground was legally sound; and whether the evidence supported the finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable care.
Ratio Decidendi:
Contributory negligence requires a finding that the plaintiff's own unreasonable act or omission materially contributed to the harm. In a sudden emergency, a plaintiff is not required to take the optimum precaution, and mere failure to do so does not amount to contributory negligence. Here, the evidence did not show any contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, and the High Court's finding was not supported by the material on record.
Result:
The appeal is allowed partly, and the appellant is entitled to the full compensation amount of Rs. 4,72,600 as originally awarded by the High Court, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-The claimant in a motor accident claim case is the appellant before us. The appellant was driving a Fiat car through National Highway No.8 on 7th February, 1976, on his way to Surat from Ahmedabad and when the car reached near Ankleshwar, a truck bearing registration No. GTC 4735 came from the opposite side at excessive speed and the car driven by the appellant hit the right side of the said truck and collided with the rear right-side wheels of the truck. The truck, which was loaded with goods, toppled over to its right side and came to a halt at a distance of about 20 feet. As a result, the appellant, his wife and another friend, who were occupants of the car, sustained injuries. They preferred claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The three claim petitions were tried jointly and the claims preferred were allowed. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the claim petition preferred by the appellant. The appellant had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 9,98,500 and the entire claim was allowed. Against that award, the respondent Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and in the appeal, it was held that the appellant was entitled to get compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,72,600. However, the High Court held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant to the extent of 30% and proportionate deduction was made from the total compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. We heard Mr. Sunil Dogra, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. K.L. Nandwani, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
3. As regards the amount of compensation due to the appellant, the High Court held that the Tribunal had seriously erred in fixing the total compensation. The High Court held that the award of Rs. 2,36,099 towards the actual loss of income and another sum of Rs. 4,71,510 towards the loss of future income and Rs. 2,32,381 towards loss of expectancy of profit were on the higher side and that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 20,500 for actual amount of loss of income and another Rs. 3,93,600 towards loss of future income. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the calculation made by the High Court is incorrect and the compensation amount should not have been reduced by the impugned Judgment whereas the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company supported the Judgment and contended that the award of a sum of Rs. 3,93,600 towards the loss of future income is not actually due to the appellant as there was only a partial disability suffered by him and the appellant has been continuing with his business and there was no loss of future earning on this account.
4. The High Court elaborately considered the matter and noticed that the appellant was under treatment for a period of 5 months and thereafter he started attending his business and had also gone abroad for business purposes. The appellant was doing the business of a commission agent. The Tribunal had earlier held that there was a loss of income for a period of 34 months and the monthly income was fixed at Rs. 9000 p.m. The High Court on the basis of average post-accident monthly income, fixed the income at Rs. 4,100 p.m. and held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 20,500 as actual loss of earning for a period of 5 months.
5. As regards the future loss of income, the Tribunal had made an award of Rs. 4,71,520, whereas the High Court fixed the future loss at Rs. 3,93,600. The High Court has given valid reasons for reduction of the amount. The High Court held that the monthly income of the appellant would have been Rs. 4,100 p.m. and by applying the multiplier of 8 years, the claim should be Rs.3,93,600 towards the future loss of income. We do not think that the multiplier adopted by the High Court is wrong or the amount of compensation granted for the future loss of income is inadequate. We also do not think that the High Court erred in fixing the quantum of compensation.
6. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the truck driver but the High Court, by the impugned Judgment held that the appellant was also partly negligent and thus, there was contributory negligence on his part and the total compensation payable to the appellant was reduced.
7. The High Court found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for two reasons. Firstly, the appellant who was driving the car did not slow down his vehicle when he saw that the truck coming at a high speed from the opposite direction was trying to overtake another car ahead of the truck and, secondly, the High Court found that there was a three feet width of the road on the left side of the car of the appellant and on seeing the oncoming truck, the appellant could have swerved his vehicle to the left side.
8. We do not think that these two reasons given by the High Court fully justify the accepted principles of contributory negligence. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant s part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence" it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong."
9. Subject to non-requirement of the existence of duty, the question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant s negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is as relevant in the case of plaintiff s contributory negligence as in the case of defendant s negligence. But the degree of want of care which will constitute contributory negligence, varies with the circumstances and the factual situation of the case. The following observation of the High Court of Australia in Astley Vs. Austrust Ltd. (1999) 73 ALJR 403 is worthy of quoting:
"A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff s share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property."
10. It has been accepted as a valid principle by various judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. In Swadling Vs. Cooper [1931] A.C. 1 at page 9. Lord Hailsham said:
"Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute negligence: the plaintiff has no right to complain if in the agony of the collision the defendant fails to take some step which might have prevented a collision unless that step is one which a reasonably careful man would fairly be expected to take in the circumstances."
11. It is important to note that the respondents did not contend before the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the driver of the car. There was not even an allegation in the written statement filed by the respondents that the car driver was negligent and the accident occurred as result of partial negligence of the car driver. During the trial of the case, there was an attempt on the part of the respondents to contend that the driver of the car was trying to overtake a truck which was going ahead of the car. The appellant-car driver had also pleaded that the truck driven by the second respondent was trying to overtake another car, which was going ahead of the truck. But these circumstances are not proved by satisfactory evidence. One expert had also given evidence in this case but he had not seen the accident spot. His opinion was based on the observation of the damaged parts of the two vehicles. The total width of the tarred portion of the road was 22 feet and there were mud shoulders on either side having a width of three feet. It is proved by satisfactory evidence that the offending truck had come to the central portion of the road and there was only a three feet width of the road on the left side of the car driven by the appellant. In this factual situation, the High Court was not justified in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. It would, if at all, only prove that the appellant had not shown extraordinary precaution. The truck driven by the second respondent almost came to the center of the road and the appellant must have been put in a dilemma and in the agony of that moment, the appellant s failure to swerve to the extreme left of the road did not amount to negligence. Thus, there was no contributory negligence on his part especially when the second respondent, the truck driver had no case that the appellant was negligent.
12. Therefore, we are of the view that the factual situation proved in this case does not show that the appellant was contributory negligent in causing the accident. In the result, we allow the appeal partly and hold that the appellant is entitled to get the full amount, namely, Rs. 4,72,600, fixed by the High Court as total compensation payable to the appellant. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed partly.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors., 2002(5) Supreme 198 : 2002(6) JT 380 : (2002) 6 SCC 455 : 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1355 : 2002(3) TAC 1 : 2002(3) CCC 210 : 2002(2) UJ (SC) 1148 : 2002(2) ACC 66 : AIR 2002 SC 2864
00042