The Supreme Court quashed the contributory negligence finding, holding the car driver solely liable for the 2009 accident. It ruled that the High Court erred by ignoring eyewitness testimony (PW-4) and a crucial site plan proving the motorcyclist was on his correct side. Full compensation was restored as deductions under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were invalid. The Court emphasized beneficial interpretation in accident claims and permitted late evidence admission given the summary nature of proceedings.
Facts Of The Case:
On July 26, 2009, Gautam (22 years, bachelor) drove a new motorcycle (insured by Bajaj Allianz) with Harpal Singh (30 years, pillion rider) near Kaithal, Haryana. An Alto car (insured by New India Assurance), driven by Gulzar Singh, collided head-on with them. Both motorcyclists died instantly; car occupant Kulwinder Singh was injured. Gulzar Singh (car driver) later died unrelatedly. Gautam’s parents (Rajo Devi, Prem Chand) and Harpal’s dependents (widow Harjinder Kaur, sons Babu Singh/Noordeep) filed claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kaithal. The MACT (2011) applied 50% contributory negligence, reducing compensation—awarding ₹86,000 to Gautam’s parents and ₹2,23,000 to Harpal’s family—based on Kulwinder Singh’s testimony (PW-5) that the collision occurred mid-road. The Punjab & Haryana High Court (2020) enhanced compensation (₹5.52L for Gautam; ₹6.91L for Harpal) but upheld contributory negligence. In Supreme Court appeals (2025), appellants produced the accident site plan (previously unavailable as Gulzar died before chargesheet). The plan proved Gautam was on his correct left side; the Alto was on the extreme right post-collision, corroborating eyewitness Suresh Kumar (PW-4). The SC ruled the collision resulted solely from the Alto driver’s negligence, quashing contributory negligence.
Procedural History:
The dependents of deceased motorcyclists filed claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kaithal, in 2011. The MACT’s 2011 award applied 50% contributory negligence, granting reduced compensation (₹86,000 for Gautam; ₹2,23,000 for Harpal). Dissatisfied, appellants appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court (FAO Nos. 1905/2014 & 8197/2014). The High Court’s 2020 order enhanced compensation (₹5.52L for Gautam; ₹6.91L for Harpal) but upheld contributory negligence. Appellants then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 993-994 of 2024, converted to Civil Appeal No(s). [ ] of 2025 (arising from SLP). The Supreme Court (2025) admitted the accident site plan as additional evidence, quashed contributory negligence, and restored full compensation (₹9.84L + ₹12.62L) with 9% interest.
READ ALSO :Homeowner Wins 7-Year Battle: Supreme Court Orders Insurer to Pay for Rain-Flooded Basement
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the contributory negligence finding was unsustainable due to the High Court’s failure to consider eyewitness testimony (PW-4) and the crucial site plan, which conclusively proved the motorcyclist was on his correct side of the road. It emphasized that contributory negligence requires affirmative evidence of shared fault, absent here, and police site plans are pivotal evidence in accident reconstruction, warranting admission even belatedly under the beneficial framework of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that the “mid-road collision” testimony (PW-5) lacked credibility when contradicted by physical evidence showing the motorcycle on the extreme left and the Alto car on the extreme right post-impact, confirming sole negligence by the car driver.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the finding of contributory negligence and holding the Alto car driver solely liable for the accident. It directed full compensation of ₹9,84,000/- (with 9% interest) to deceased Gautam’s parents (Rajo Devi & Prem Chand) and ₹12,62,400/- (with 9% interest) to deceased Harpal Singh’s dependents (Harjinder Kaur, Babu Singh & Noordeep), payable by the car’s insurer (New India Assurance). The amounts must be deposited with the MACT within six weeks. The judgment was delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prasanna B. Varale on May 19, 2025, disposing of all pending applications without costs.
Case Details:
Case Title:Rajo Devi & Anr. Etc. vs Manjeet Kaur & Ors. Citation:2025 INSC 741 Appeal No: (Arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 993-994 of 2024) Date of Judgment:May 19, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Hon’ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Download The Judgement Here