Mere Attempt To Overtake NoMere Attempt To Overtake Not An Act Of Rashness Or Negligence: Supreme Co

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that merely attempting to overtake another vehicle does not automatically imply rashness or negligence. This decision was made in the civil appellate case of Prem Lal Anand & Others v. Narendra Kumar & Others (SLP(C) Nos. 30188-30189/2018), with Justices C. T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol presiding.

 

Case Background

 

The case originated from a tragic accident involving Prem Lal Anand and his wife. They were traveling by motorcycle to Noida when they were struck by two tractors driven recklessly. The collision resulted in the death of Mr. Anand’s wife and left him with severe injuries, including a fractured leg and broken jaw. The couple, who ran a successful business, M/s. Sonali Fabrics, faced significant financial loss due to the accident.

 

Mr. Anand initially sought ?12,00,000 in compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ghaziabad, for the loss of his wife and the impact on their business. However, the tribunal awarded only ?1,01,250, attributing partial responsibility for the accident to Mr. Anand and thus reducing the compensation amount.

 

Legal Proceedings and Issues

 

Unhappy with the MACT’s decision, Mr. Anand appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court partially allowed his claims but found errors in how compensation was calculated, leading Mr. Anand to escalate the case to the Supreme Court.

 

The key issues included:

 

1. Contributory Negligence: Was Mr. Anand’s attempt to overtake the tractors considered as contributing to the accident?

2. Compensation Calculation: Was the compensation accurately calculated, including considerations for future prospects?

3. Liability Distribution: Was the liability between Mr. Anand and the defendants fairly apportioned?

 

Supreme Court’s Ruling

 

The Supreme Court carefully reviewed previous rulings on contributory negligence and concluded that attempting to overtake a vehicle is not inherently an act of rashness or negligence. Justice Sanjay Karol noted, "In the given facts and circumstances, simply trying to overtake a vehicle cannot be deemed an act of rashness or negligence unless proven otherwise."

 

The court also observed that overtaking is a common driving maneuver and did not warrant the degree of blame assigned by lower courts. It recognized that the tractors were driven recklessly, significantly contributing to the accident.

 

Regarding compensation, the Supreme Court adjusted the multiplier to 15, in line with precedents set in cases like Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and took into account future prospects. As a result, the court awarded a total compensation of ?11,25,000, correcting the initial award of ?1,01,250.