Can negligence be fastened against a lorry driver who ran over the claimant after a head collision between the two wheeler and the auto?

No. Where there is a head collision between the two wheeler driven by the claimant and the auto coming on the opposite direction, and the accident occurred in the centre median of the road, no negligence can be fastened against the driver of the lorry. The lorry ran in close proximity with the motorcycle and ran over the left leg of the claimant only after he fell down on the road.

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Contributory negligence — Fixing of negligence between the claimant and the auto driver — Compensation — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Negligence — Initial burden on the claimant — Held: The initial burden lies on the claimant to prove negligence through preponderance of probabilities and by strict proof of evidence. Where the defacto complainant and any independent witness are not examined, the averments in the First Information Report govern. (¶13, 15) Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Contributory negligence — No negligence on the driver of the lorry — Held further: Where there is a head collision between the two wheeler and the auto in the centre median of the road, no negligence can be fastened against the driver of the lorry that ran over the claimant after he fell down. (¶16, 17) Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Left side driving — More contributory negligence on the auto driver — Held further: Where the accident took place in the middle of a National Highway and the claimant’s vehicle is the smaller two wheeler, there should be more contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto than the claimant. Appeal partly allowed. (¶18, 19, 20)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of R.Raveendar Kumar Singh v. C. Marimuthu — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India