Should more contributory negligence be fixed on the auto driver who did not maintain left side driving than on the overtaking motor cycle rider?

Yes. Where the accident took place in the centre median of the road, there is some extent of negligence on the part of the claimant, who would not have taken the risk of overtaking the lorry had he cautiously noticed the auto coming in the opposite direction. But the claimant’s vehicle is a two wheeler, a smaller vehicle, the width of the road is more than 50 feet as it is a National Highway, and the auto driver who should have maintained left side driving hit the motorcycle in the middle of the road — which shows that there should be more contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Contributory negligence was fixed at 70% on the auto driver and 30% on the claimant.

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