Chandigarh: The final position of vehicles after a head-on collision cannot serve as conclusive proof of negligence, Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled, setting aside a contributory negligence finding and increasing an accident compensation award to over Rs 1.1 crore.Justice Harkesh Manuja recently allowed an appeal by Monika alias Meena and others against a Feb 7, 2018, ruling by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Hisar. The tribunal had attributed 75% contributory negligence to the deceased car driver, Surender, and reduced his family’s payout to Rs 27.9 lakh. “No contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has been established,” the HC held.The court enhanced the compensation to Rs 1.1 crore from Rs 27.93 lakh and increased the interest rate from 7.5% to 9% per annum from the petition’s filing date.The accident occurred on Feb 24, 2014, near Pipla Pul in Hisar district, when a Tata Canter driven by Joginder struck Surender’s Maruti Swift Dzire. Surender, who was going from Gurgaon towards Hisar with his brother Birender, died on the spot. An FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was registered on Birender’s statement.The tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs 1.11 crore but restricted the liability to 25%, attributing 75% contributory negligence to the deceased. It relied on the head-on collision, width of the road, daylight conditions, distance from which the Canter was noticed and car’s position on the right side of the road after the accident.The counsel for the appellants, Sanchit Punia, contended that the finding was unsustainable, Birender, the eyewitness, deposed the car was being driven on its correct side at 50-60 km per hour and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Canter.The respondents, Joginder and others, contended that the site plan depicted the car on the wrong side of the road.Rejecting these arguments, the high court noted that Birender had denied the suggestion that his brother was driving rashly or had moved to the wrong side. It observed that a vehicle travelling at 50-60 km per hour would cover a distance of 30 feet in less than a second, implying it could not reasonably be inferred that the car driver had sufficient time to avoid the collision. The investigating officer had also admitted that no statement alleging negligence by the deceased was recorded during investigation.The bench also clarified that the Canter driver’s acquittal in criminal proceedings on the benefit of the doubt did not bind the tribunal, as civil compensation relies on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.The court maintained Surender’s annual income assessment at Rs 6.61 lakh and ordered the driver, owner and insurer of the Canter to remain jointly and severally liable.It further awarded Rs 2.40 lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs 18,000 each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs 20,000 towards transportation expenses.
