Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a motor accident claim filed by the parents of Aishwarya, a 17-year-old student who died in a road accident on 19 April 2017. The claimants were her father Pradip Salelkar and mother Neeta Salelkar. Aishwarya was riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by her father when a truck bearing registration No. MH-07/C-5452 struck them at an intersection where an internal road joined the main Panaji-Margao road. Aishwarya succumbed to injuries while being shifted to hospital; her father survived. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 102 of 2017, by judgment and award dated 15 November 2019, determined just compensation at Rs. 16,90,000 but held that the father and truck driver contributed equally to the accident. Consequently, only 50% of compensation, i.e., Rs. 8,45,000, was awarded to the mother, and no compensation to the father due to contributory negligence. The parents appealed in First Appeal No. 18 of 2020 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the equal apportionment. The Tribunal had relied on the scene of accident panchanama showing truck brake marks of 14.20 metres, indicating high speed; evidence that speed breakers/rumble strips were removed due to the international BRICS event; testimony of Investigating Officer AW.3 that continuous white divider line prohibited right turn even at junction; and Pradip's statement that he noticed the truck at 20-25 metres before turning right. The Tribunal concluded Pradip contributed equally by crossing the continuous white line. The High Court examined Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, Clause 6(4), which prohibits crossing a solid longitudinal line only while overtaking, and Clause 9 on precautions at intersections; and Indian Roads Congress Code of Practice, 2015, Clause 3.1.1 and 3.1.4, which state continuous longitudinal markings shall not be crossed, but noted AW.3 deposed white markings, not yellow. The Court held that conjoint reading of the regulations and IRC code did not demonstrate an absolute prohibition on crossing a continuous line at a junction or intersection, though precautions were required. From the sketch annexed to the panchanama, Pradip had already traversed more than 80% of the highway width, and the truck's skid marks of almost 14.20 metres indicated its high speed. The truck driver failed to enter the witness box without explanation, and adverse inference was drawn against him. The Court also noted that a truck being a heavier vehicle warranted greater care, and the impact of removed speed breakers should not have been equally apportioned to the rider. Considering all material, the High Court held that the truck driver's contribution to the accident was much higher than Pradip's, and Pradip's contributory negligence could not be taken above 25%. The Court thus concluded that the finding of contributory negligence could be sustained only to the extent of 25% against Pradip, not 50%, and the appeal was to be allowed accordingly, though the final operative order beyond this is not fully available in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, Clause 6(4), Clause 9; Indian Roads Congress Code of Practice, 2015, Clause 3.1.1, Clause 3.1.4 - Tribunal held equal contributory negligence based on continuous white divider line and rider's statement of noticing truck at 20-25 metres. High Court found no absolute prohibition on crossing continuous line at junction under the said provisions, and precautions only were required. Considering truck's high speed, 14.20 metre skid marks, rider's traversing 80% of road, and adverse inference against driver, Court limited rider's contributory negligence to 25%, not 50% (Paras 8-15). B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Failure of Driver to Testify - General Principles of Evidence - Truck driver did not enter witness box despite pleading that negligence should be attributed to rider or shared equally. No explanation was offered for absence; adverse inference drawn against driver for failing to depose his version. This inference supported finding of higher negligence on truck driver's part (Paras 7, 14). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Duty of Care - Heavier Vehicle - General Principles of Law - Tribunal failed to appreciate that truck being heavier vehicle required greater care, and removal of speed breakers due to BRICS event should not be equally apportioned against rider. Court held truck driver's contribution to accident was much higher and rider's contributory negligence cannot exceed 25% (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was correct in holding equal contributory negligence (50:50) between the motorcycle rider/father and truck driver, and whether the father's contributory negligence should be limited to 25% given the evidence, adverse inference, and applicable road regulations.
Final Decision
The High Court, on analysis, found truck driver's negligence was much higher, limited father's contributory negligence to 25%, drew adverse inference against truck driver, and held that continuous white line did not create absolute bar at junction; the Tribunal's finding of equal contributory negligence was modified, and the appeal was to be allowed to that extent, though the exact final operative direction is not fully available in the provided excerpt.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence must be apportioned based on evidence and adverse inference
- Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations
- 2017 Clause 6(4) only prohibits crossing continuous line for overtaking
- not absolute bar at junction
- Indian Roads Congress
- 2015 Clause 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 continuous longitudinal markings shall not be crossed but no absolute prohibition at intersections
- adverse inference drawn for failure of truck driver to enter witness box
- heavier vehicle driver owes higher duty of care
- removal of speed breakers for BRICS event not equally apportioned against rider
