MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Contributory Negligence Requires Proof: Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 74.94 Lakh Compensation in Fatal Accident”

04 December 2024 11:57 AM

By: sayum


Court dismisses National Insurance Co. Ltd.’s appeal, stressing the need for substantial evidence to prove contributory negligence. The Calcutta High Court has upheld a significant compensation award of Rs. 74,94,600 to the family of Sushanta Mallick, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhendu Samanta, dismissed the appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd. And emphasized the critical role of adhering to parking regulations as stipulated in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Credibility of Medical Evidence: The court observed that the parked truck on the highway without necessary parking lights or indicators directly violated the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. “Compliance with parking regulations is critical for determining liability in road accidents,” the bench noted.

Witness Testimonies: The court scrutinized the testimonies of witnesses, including the driver of the Maruti car and an eye-witness, both of whom confirmed that the truck was parked without any lights or indicators on a foggy night. The driver of the Maruti car, PW4, stated, “The truck was stationary on the pucca road facing towards Malda side without any parking light or indicator, and it was a dark night with no street light at the place of the accident.”

The judgment elaborated on the principles of contributory negligence. It was underscored that the mere allegation of contributory negligence by the insurance company, without substantial evidence, is insufficient to alter the liability. Justice Samanta emphasized, “In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence proving rash and negligent driving on the part of the Maruti car driver, the argument of contributory negligence cannot be entertained.”

Justice Samanta remarked, “The evidence of PW4, the driver of the Maruti car, in examination-in-chief was not shaken during his cross-examination, proving that the driver was not driving at an excessive speed. Parking a truck on the highway without indicators or signals is an act of negligence and a violation of Motor Vehicles Rules.”

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to parking regulations under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. By affirming the Tribunal’s award and dismissing the appeal, the court has set a precedent that underscores the liability of stationary vehicles in accidents caused by their non-compliance with safety standards. The decision also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice in motor accident claims and the responsibility of insurance companies to provide substantial evidence when alleging contributory negligence.

Date of Decision: 20th June 2024

Latest Legal News