Recent Supreme Court reportable case: Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole ,Held :Contributory Negligence Overruled by SC |

Published On - October 5, 2024

spatraadmin Supreme Court Reportable Cases, YouTube and social media updates

Case Title:
Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors.
Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 425, 2024 INSC 706
Civil Appeal No: 10648 of 2024
Judgment Date: 19th September 2024
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Supreme Court Reportable Case

YouTube case summary:

Facts of the Case:

  1. On 18th August 2013, a car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck that was abandoned in the middle of a highway without indicators or parking lights.
  2. The accident resulted in the deaths of the driver and several passengers, with only one survivor, Sushma.
  3. Sushma and the legal heirs of the deceased occupants filed compensation claims against the truck’s owner and insurer.
  4. The Tribunal found the accident to be a case of contributory negligence, holding both the car and truck drivers responsible.
  5. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced by 50% due to the alleged contributory negligence of the car driver.
  6. The Tribunal’s ruling was upheld by the High Court of Karnataka.
  7. The appellant-claimants challenged the High Court decision, arguing against the contributory negligence finding.
  8. The High Court enhanced the compensation but retained the 50% reduction due to contributory negligence.
  9. The core issue in the Supreme Court appeal was the deduction of 50% of compensation due to the alleged negligence of the car driver.
  10. The appellant-claimants sought full compensation, contesting the contributory negligence finding.

Legal Points:

  1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 govern liability in road accidents.
  2. Contributory Negligence Doctrine: The High Court applied the principle that the car driver could have avoided the collision and was partly responsible.
  3. Imputation of Driver’s Negligence to Passengers: The Court examined whether the driver’s negligence could reduce compensation for innocent passengers.
  4. Parking of Heavy Vehicles on Highways: The Court scrutinized the truck driver’s failure to place warning signs, indicators, or lights.
  5. Last Opportunity Rule: The lower courts applied this rule, stating the car driver had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
  6. Contributory Negligence Impact: The legal heirs argued that the contributory negligence principle was wrongly applied to passengers.
  7. Case Law Support: Precedent from the cases of Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P, and Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak were cited.
  8. Court’s Scope for Reviewing Concurrent Findings: The Court explored its authority to interfere with concurrent lower court findings.
  9. Quantum of Compensation: Full entitlement of compensation to innocent passengers was debated.
  10. Supreme Court Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the claimants, discarding the contributory negligence ruling and awarding full compensation.

Arguments:

  • Appellant’s Arguments:
    1. The truck was abandoned in violation of road safety regulations, without lights or warning signs.
    2. The driver of the car could not reasonably be expected to avoid the collision due to the lack of visibility.
    3. Innocent passengers should not suffer a reduction in compensation due to the driver’s alleged negligence.
  • Respondent’s Arguments:
    1. The driver of the car should have been more cautious and could have avoided the accident.
    2. The principle of contributory negligence was rightly applied, as both drivers were at fault.

Precedents Cited:

  1. Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India: Addressed the scope of interference in concurrent findings.
  2. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P: Laid out the principles for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
  3. Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: Discussed vicarious liability in contributory negligence cases.

Judgment Points:

  1. The truck was abandoned without proper warning signs, creating a traffic hazard.
  2. The car driver could not reasonably avoid the accident, given the lack of visibility.
  3. The lower courts erred in applying contributory negligence to passengers.
  4. The driver’s alleged negligence cannot reduce compensation for innocent passengers.
  5. The 50% deduction in compensation was reversed.
  6. The truck’s insurer was held fully responsible for compensating the claimants.
  7. The High Court’s finding of contributory negligence was declared perverse.
  8. Full compensation was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased passengers.
  9. The principle of contributory negligence cannot apply to innocent passengers.
  10. The Court exercised its power under Article 136 to reverse the lower courts’ findings

Read judgement:

Caselaw