Supreme Court Restores Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Mohammed Siddique vs. National Insurance Company (2020)

Date of the Judgment: January 08, 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 17

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a person riding as a pillion on a motorcycle be held contributorily negligent in a road accident, simply for being a third rider? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, overturning a High Court decision that had reduced compensation for the family of a deceased accident victim. The core issue revolved around whether the victim’s act of riding on a motorcycle with two other people constituted contributory negligence and whether the High Court was correct in reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with the opinion authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by the parents of a 23-year-old man who died in a road accident on September 7, 2008, due to injuries sustained on September 5, 2008. The victim was one of two pillion riders on a motorcycle that was hit from behind by a car. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially determined that the car driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,66,800 to the parents of the deceased, which included loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

The parents, the appellants, claimed their son was employed at a monthly salary of Rs. 9,600. The employer testified to this effect and provided a salary certificate. The Tribunal, finding no reason to disbelieve the employer, calculated the loss of dependency by applying a multiplier of 18, deducting 50% for personal expenses, and adding amounts for other heads of compensation.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Insurance Company appealed the Tribunal’s award to the High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal was primarily on two grounds: (i) the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence for riding with two other persons on a motorcycle, and (ii) the deceased’s employment and income were not satisfactorily proven. The High Court agreed with the first ground, holding that the deceased was contributorily negligent and reduced the compensation by 10%. On the second ground, the High Court rejected the employer’s testimony and salary certificate, relying instead on the minimum wages for unskilled workers at the time. The High Court also reduced the multiplier from 18 to 14, based on the age of the claimants, resulting in a drastic reduction of the compensation to Rs. 4,14,000.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section provides for appeals against the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
• Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section restricts the number of persons that can be carried on a two-wheeled motorcycle to one person in addition to the driver.
• Section 194-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section prescribes a penalty for violating safety measures for motorcycle drivers and pillion riders.

The legal framework also involves the principles of contributory negligence and the method of calculating compensation in motor accident cases. The High Court’s decision was based on the premise that a violation of the law (Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) automatically implies contributory negligence. The Supreme Court, however, examined this premise closely, emphasizing the need for a causal link between the violation and the accident or its impact.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Parents of the Deceased) Arguments:

• The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car, which hit the motorcycle from behind.
• The deceased was employed and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,600, as testified by his employer.
• The Tribunal correctly applied a multiplier of 18 based on the age of the deceased.
• The High Court erred in reducing the compensation based on a presumption of contributory negligence and by using minimum wages instead of actual income.

Respondent’s (Insurance Company) Arguments:

• The deceased was guilty of contributory negligence because he was riding on a motorcycle with two other persons, violating Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• The employer did not produce sufficient records to substantiate the deceased’s income, such as salary vouchers and income tax returns.
• The multiplier should be based on the age of the claimants, which is higher than that of the deceased, as per the decision in *UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra* [1996] 4 SCC 362.

The appellants argued that there was no evidence to show that the deceased’s act of riding with two others contributed to the accident or the severity of the injuries. They contended that the High Court’s reduction of compensation was based on a flawed understanding of contributory negligence. The Insurance Company argued that the violation of the law itself constituted contributory negligence and that the High Court was correct in reducing the compensation. They also argued that the employer’s testimony should not be accepted without documentary evidence and that the multiplier should be based on the age of the claimants, not the deceased.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in challenging the automatic assumption that a violation of traffic rules by the victim automatically implies contributory negligence. They argued that a causal link between the violation and the accident or its impact must be established.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence merely because he was riding on a motorcycle with two other persons.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the evidence of the employer regarding the deceased’s employment and monthly income.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in applying a multiplier of 14 instead of 18.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the case of *UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra* [1996] 4 SCC 362, stating that the issue of choice between the age of the deceased and the age of the claimant was not the main issue in that case.
• The Court noted that *General Manager, Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas* [1994] 2 SCC 176 was decided before the insertion of the Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• The Court approved and followed the principles laid down in *Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.* [2009] 6 SCC 121 and the subsequent cases of *Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.* [2013] 9 SCC 65 and *Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma* JT 2015 (5) SC 1, holding that the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The lack of a causal link between the violation of the law (riding with two others) and the accident.
• The reliability of the employer’s testimony and the salary certificate, which the Tribunal had found credible.
• The need for consistency in the application of the multiplier, as laid down in *Sarla Verma*.

The Court emphasized that contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely from a violation of the law. There must be a clear connection between the violation and the accident or the severity of the injuries. The Court also highlighted the importance of respecting the findings of the Tribunal, which is in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses.

The sentiment analysis shows that the Court was primarily driven by the legal principles of causation and consistency, while also giving due weight to the factual findings of the Tribunal. The ratio table shows that the Court was more influenced by the legal aspects of the case than the factual aspects.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, automatically implied contributory negligence. The Court emphasized that the violation must have a causal connection with the accident or the extent of the injuries. The Court also rejected the High Court’s approach of relying on minimum wages, stating that the Tribunal’s acceptance of the employer’s testimony was valid. The Court also clarified that the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased, as per *Sarla Verma*, and not the age of the claimants.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the reasoning and the outcome. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles of contributory negligence and the method of calculating compensation in motor accident cases.

“The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence.”

“There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim.”

“The High Court ought to have appreciated that the Court of first instance was in a better position to appreciate the oral testimony.”

Key Takeaways

• A mere violation of traffic rules does not automatically imply contributory negligence. A causal link between the violation and the accident or its impact must be established.
• The testimony of an employer regarding an employee’s income, if found credible by the Tribunal, should not be rejected by the High Court without sufficient reason.
• The multiplier for calculating compensation in motor accident cases should be based on the age of the deceased, as per the principles laid down in *Sarla Verma*.

This judgment clarifies the principles of contributory negligence and the method of calculating compensation in motor accident cases. It emphasizes the need for a causal link between the violation of law and the accident and reinforces the importance of respecting the findings of the Tribunal. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving similar issues, ensuring fairer compensation for accident victims and their families.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court also directed that there shall be no order as to costs.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable as no specific amendment was analysed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a violation of traffic rules does not automatically imply contributory negligence. A causal link between the violation and the accident or its impact must be established. This judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in *Sarla Verma* regarding the choice of multiplier and clarifies the evidentiary standards for proving income in motor accident claims. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment provides a clearer interpretation of the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Mohammed Siddique vs. National Insurance Company* overturns the High Court’s decision, restoring the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court held that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence merely for riding on a motorcycle with two other persons, as there was no causal link between the violation of law and the accident. The Court also emphasized that the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased, and the Tribunal’s acceptance of the employer’s testimony was valid. This judgment reinforces the principles of causation in contributory negligence and ensures fairer compensation for accident victims.