The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the High Court's finding of 50% contributory negligence on the deceased car driver in a motor accident claim case. The accident occurred on 17.11.2014 at 02:30 am on a National Highway, resulting in the death of the car driver. The Tribunal had found the truck driver negligent based on eyewitness testimony, but the High Court reversed this finding and imposed contributory negligence, reducing compensation by 50%. The Supreme Court examined the evidence including eyewitness testimony of PW-3, inspection report of the truck, and statements of witnesses. The Court found that the eyewitness testimony clearly established the truck driver's negligence as the truck was driven rashly on the right lane and suddenly swerved to the left lane where the car was proceeding. The inspection report showing major damages on the left side of the truck corroborated this version. The Court held that the High Court's finding of contributory negligence was based on mere surmises and conjectures without proper evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the contributory negligence finding and restored the Tribunal's award for full compensation, while upholding the High Court's deletion of Rs.1,60,000 towards love and affection.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Fatal accident between car and truck- Claim for compensation - Award of tribunal- Challenged before High court- Aggrieved and dissatisfaction by the appellant/claimant with the judgment of the high court- Challenged before Apex Court- High Court's finding qua contributory negligence on the part of deceased car driver is under challenge-- Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence based on mere surmises and conjectures -- The eyewitness testimony of PW-3 clearly established negligence of the truck driver -- The inspection report of the truck corroborated the eyewitness version -- The truck driver's claim of tyre burst was not supported by evidence -- No justification in determination of contributory negligence on the basis of surmises and conjectures- The High Court's deletion of Rs.1,60,000 towards love and affection was upheld -- The appeal was partly allowed
Para- 6-10
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal -- Set aside the High Court's finding of contributory negligence -- Restored the Tribunal's award for full compensation except Rs.1,60,000 deleted towards love and affection -- Directed payment of balance amounts with interest at 7.5% per annum as directed by Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (12) 12
Case Number: Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.27861 of 2023)
Date of Decision: 2025-12-08
Case Title: Whether the High Court was justified in finding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased car driver and reducing compensation by 50%
Before Judge: Ahsanuddin Amanullah J. , K. Vinod Chandran J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 1424
Advocate(s): Haris Beeran, Manu Luv Shalia
Appellant: Radha Thevannoor
Respondent: M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Nature of Litigation: Civil appeal against High Court judgment in motor accident claim case
Remedy Sought: Appellant-claimant seeking setting aside of High Court's finding of contributory negligence and restoration of Tribunal's award for full compensation
Filing Reason: Challenge to High Court's finding of 50% contributory negligence on deceased car driver which reduced compensation by half
Previous Decisions: Tribunal found truck driver negligent and awarded compensation -- High Court reversed finding and imposed 50% contributory negligence on deceased car driver, reducing compensation by half
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in finding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased car driver? Whether the evidence on record established negligence solely on the truck driver?
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant's counsel argued that High Court erred in finding contributory negligence based on surmises and conjectures despite credible eyewitness testimony -- Respondent's counsel contended that inspection report indicated car was driven rashly and negligently
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court cannot find contributory negligence based on mere surmises and conjectures without proper evidence -- Eyewitness testimony, when credible and corroborated by other evidence, must be given due weight in establishing negligence -- The burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it
Judgment Excerpts: The eyewitness testimony regarding the rash and negligent driving of the truck clearly clinches the issue insofar as the negligence is concerned -- We find absolutely no reason for the High Court to have found contributory negligence on mere surmises and conjectures -- The truck having been suddenly taken to the left lane, the car, which was proceeding in the same direction on the left lane of the four-lane highway dashed against the truck -- This tallies with the large-scale damages caused on the left side of the truck
Procedural History: Accident occurred on 17.11.2014 -- FIR registered by truck driver -- Claim petition filed before Tribunal -- Tribunal found truck driver negligent and awarded compensation -- High Court reversed finding and imposed 50% contributory negligence -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal
