Madras HC: Overspeeding on High-Speed Road Is Not Contributory Negligence in Fatal Accident [Read Judgment]

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging an award of Rs. 2,92,69,944 granted to the family of an ISRO scientist who died after his two-wheeler collided with a goods vehicle negligently parked on the Minjur-Vandalur Outer Ring Road.

A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Rajasekar held that “the parking of TATA Ace vehicle was the root cause for the accident,” and that fixing contributory negligence on the deceased, who was riding on a stretch of road meant for high-speed travel, “would not be proper.”

The deceased, R.S. Pugazhenthi, a scientist at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Tiruvananthapuram, earning Rs. 2,05,574 per month, was riding his two-wheeler on the Minjur-Vandalur Bypass Outer Ring Road on 31.12.2019 at around 3:15 p.m. when he hit a TATA Ace vehicle parked on the left side of the road without any indication. He sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle under Sections 283 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code at the Poonamallee Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station.

The deceased’s wife, minor son and mother filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Special District Court, Thiruvallur, seeking compensation of Rs. 25 crores, contending that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent parking of the goods vehicle. The Tribunal, after examining three witnesses on each side and considering documentary evidence including the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and the First Information Report, accepted the claimants’ case and awarded Rs. 2,92,69,944 along with interest, also directing pay-and-recovery against the insurer since the offending vehicle lacked a fitness certificate.

Aggrieved, the insurance company appealed before the High Court, with its counsel arguing that the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle, examined as R.W.1, had narrated the entire occurrence to show that although the vehicle was parked in broad daylight with sufficient caution available to other road users, the deceased approached at high speed and dashed against the rear of the stationed vehicle. It was contended that an eyewitness, P.W.2, had also confirmed that the deceased struck the parked vehicle, that the road had a width of 200 feet, and that contributory negligence ought to have been fixed on the deceased for failing to control his speed.

Counsel for the respondents/claimants countered that the TATA Ace vehicle was parked on the Outer Ring Road, a stretch meant for high-speed travel where riding fast was legally permissible, and specifically on the third track ordinarily used by two-wheelers. It was submitted that the parked vehicle was at the entry point of an elevated overbridge on a sloping section of road, where visibility was restricted, and that despite seeing the vehicle, the deceased could not stop in time, resulting in the accident.

The Court examined the evidence of both witnesses along with the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, photographs of the accident site, and the FIR, which was lodged by another lorry driver shortly after the occurrence. It noted that the Outer Ring Road had three tracks, with the extreme left meant for two-wheelers and the other two tracks meant for high-speed vehicular traffic, and that “the TATA Ace vehicle was parked in the area, where usually two wheelers would commute,” at the slopy entry point of the elevated corridor where oncoming riders could not easily see the parked vehicle.

Rejecting the insurer’s contention that the deceased’s speed amounted to contributory negligence, the Bench observed that since the stretch of road was meant for high-speed travel, riding fast there “could not be considered as a negligent act, because, all the vehicles entering into the Ring Road, travelled at high speed,” and that a slow-moving vehicle would itself disturb regular traffic on such a road.

The Court also took note that the police had filed a final report against the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle in the criminal proceedings, with no rebuttal forthcoming from him on that score, and held that the evidence of the claimants deserved to be placed on a higher pedestal than that of the insurer. Concluding that the negligent parking of the goods vehicle on a two-wheeler track was the sole and root cause of the accident, the Bench declined to fix any contributory negligence on the deceased and confirmed the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal.

As the quantum of compensation was not separately challenged, the High Court confirmed the award of Rs. 2,92,69,944 in its entirety. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected C.M.P. No. 10504 of 2024 was closed.

For the Appellant: Mr. Vinod K, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. C.K. Chandrasekkar for Mr. R. Prabu, Advocates

Case Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Ammu and Others, CMA No. 1163 of 2024

[Read Judgment]