The Delhi High Court recently held that failing to exercise reasonable caution while driving and overtaking constitutes rash and negligent driving.
A single bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth was considering a petition seeking increase in compensation granted by a motor accidents claims tribunal when he opined that rash and negligent driving does not necessarily mean excessive speed.
“Not taking due care while driving the vehicle and in particular overtaking, either stationary or moving vehicle also would amount to rash and negligent driving. Hence, this Court is in complete agreement with the learned Claims Tribunal and the deceased is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%,” the order reads.
In this case, the tribunal awarded 17.5 lakh in compensation, plus 7.5% interest per year.
However, due to contributory negligence, a 20% deduction was ordered from the total. The appellants requested that the compensation amount be increased.
Advocate SN Parashar, appearing for the appellants, stated that the deceased was driving a motorcycle when he collided with a vehicle parked in the middle of the road with no signal or light indicator. He died in the hospital as a result of his injuries sustained in the collision.
The deceased was 54 years old and worked as a government contractor. The appellants sought compensation from the tribunal in the amount of Rs 50 lakh.
In his appearance on behalf of the respondents, Advocate Ravi Sabharwal stated that the incident occurred solely due to the deceased’s negligence.
The High Court examined eyewitness testimony and concluded that the accident was undoubtedly caused by the respondent’s irresponsible and negligent parking of his vehicle in the middle of the road.
Furthermore, it was stated that the accident could have been avoided if the deceased had been driving with caution while crossing the stationary bus.
The reliance in this regard was placed on the eyewitness testimony of another motorcycle rider who was traveling behind the deceased and categorically stated that he saw a DTC bus in the middle of the road.
“Therefore, if the deceased had taken proper precautions, he would have seen the DTC bus standing in the middle of the road, and the unfortunate accident would have been avoided.”
As a result, while agreeing with the tribunal’s decision, the bench increased the compensation on the basis of future prospects and loss of dependency, among other things. Despite the increase, the 20% deduction for contributory negligence was preserved.
The total amount payable in compensation was eventually set at Rs 33 lakh.
