The Court increased the compensation awarded to a claimant who lost his wife in an accident when they collided with an over-speeding tractor as they tried to overtake another tractor.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a mere attempt to overtake a vehicle cannot be regarded as an act of rashness or negligence [Prem Lal Anand and Others v. Narendra Kumar and Others].
A Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol proceeded to increase the compensation awarded to a claimant in a motor accident case who collided with an over-speeding tractor coming from the wrong side of the road as he tried to overtake another tractor. The wife of the claimant, who was travelling with him on the motorcycle, had died as a result of the accident which took place in 1994.
“Record reveals that driver of the tractor No.UP 14-A 1933 had maintained slow speed, prompting the claimant-appellant No.1 to overtake, but, however, the driver of the another tractor bearing No.UP 14-B 9603 was rash and negligent in his act, inasmuch as, not only did he overspeed, but also came from the wrong side, resulting in the collusion. In the attending facts and circumstances, 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 Court observed.
The Court was hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court ruling which upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order. The MACT had held that the claimant and the over-speeding tractor driver were equally responsible for the accident. The Tribunal thus awarded compensation of ₹1,01,250 with 8 per cent interest.
Taking note that it was the wife of the claimant who died during the accident, the top court was of the view that the over-speeding tractor was driven rashly and negligently. Therefore, contributory negligence attributed to the claimant was unjustified, it said.
“…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.”