Mere Attempt To Overtake Vehicle On Road Doesn't Mean Rash & Negligent Driving : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in its recent order has observed that a mere attempt of overtaking on the road cannot by itself mean rash and negligent driving.

The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was deciding an appeal arising out of an accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the appellants just for over taking on the road when in fact the respondent's vehicle was coming from the wrong side.

"Merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record."

The case stems from a tragic accident where the appellant along with his wife were hit by two tractors while traveling on a motorcycle. The wife died on the spot, while the husband suffered severe injuries. The couple ran a successful business together, earning a substantial income.

Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a limited compensation of Rs.1,01,250/- as opposed to the claim of Rs 12,00,000/- citing contributory negligence on the part of the victims. The High Court partly allowed an appeal, observing that there was an apparent error in the Tribunal applying multiplier 9 to calculate the compensation whereas, accordingly applied the multiplier as 14. The Tribunal was, therefore, directed to calculate the enhanced compensation, carrying the rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

Earlier a recall application preferred by the appellant against the impugned order of the High Court was also dismissed.

The Supreme Court while overturning the findings held that the assumption of contributory negligence was unjustified. It noted that overtaking a vehicle is a common occurrence on roads and does not necessarily indicate rash behavior.

The Court noted that the reason why the tribunal truncated the claim amount was by apportioning 50% contributory negligence on the appellants for rash driving.

Referring to the decisions in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer & Anr. and Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karamasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors, the court held that the mere act of over taking on the road would not be sufficient evidence to establish rash and negligent driving.

In Laxman Iyer, the Court held that contributory negligence applies only to the plaintiff's actions. It means the plaintiff did something (or failed to do something) that significantly contributed to their own harm. This action or inaction can be considered negligent, but not in the usual legal sense of the word.

The bench observed that as per the facts, one tractor driver was going slowly, which led the appellate to overtake. However, a second tractor's driver was found to be driving rashly. This tractor-driver was speeding and came from the wrong side of the road, causing a crash.

The judges emphasized that overtaking is a common action on roads. They said it should not be seen as rash behavior without other evidence. In this case, the person who was overtaking actually suffered injuries and lost a family member in the accident.

The court also noted that the vehicle that caused the accident was clearly driven in a rash and negligent manner.

" Merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record. Further, it is the claimant-appellant(s) who lost a member of their family. Not only was the claimant-appellant, Prem Lal Anand doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. That apart, it has also been proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant No.1 was erroneous and unjustified. Consequently, compensation awarded on this count has to be revised"

The Court also addressed the issue of compensation calculation. It applied a higher multiplier (15 instead of 9) and considered future prospects in determining the final amount. As a result, the compensation was significantly increased from the original Rs.1,01,250/- to Rs.11,25,000/-.

The award of the tribunal was modified to the extent that rate of interest would be 8% instead of 12%

Case Details : Prem Lal Anand and Others v. Narendra Kumar and Others

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Click here to read the judgment