“Welfare of the Child is Paramount," Rules Allahabad High Court in Custody Dispute Termination of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Requires Compelling Reasons:  Punjab and Haryana High Court Land Acquisition | Possession Rightly Taken; Advance Compensation Cannot Be Recovered: Bombay High Court Upholds Advance Compensation Contributory Negligence Requires Proof: Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 74.94 Lakh Compensation in Fatal Accident” Courts Should Not Enter into Evaluation of Answer Keys: Delhi High Court in SSC CGLE 2023 Revaluation Case Deprivation of Personal Liberty Without Ensuring Speedy Trial is Not Consistent with Article 21:  High Court Discrepancies in Evidence Warrant Sentence Reduction: Madras High Court in Aggravated Sexual Assault Case Widow's Rights Under Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act Upheld: 'Kalabai Entitled to 50% Share,' Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court" No Relief Without Possession – Patna High Court Quashes 1965 Auction Sale Under Specific Relief Act and CPC Questions of Title Should Not Be Adjudicated in Writ Proceedings: Orissa High Court Conviction under Section 364-A IPC Reversed: Telangana High Court Downgrades to Section 363 IPC in Kidnapping Case Taking a Loan May Not Be a Ground, Per Se, to Reduce the Amount of Maintenance: Uttarakhand High Court Recognition of Qualifications Cannot Be Arbitrarily Denied, But Due Process Must Be Followed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Irregular Reduction in Upset Price Renders Auction Sale Void: Kerala High Court Karnataka High Court Condemns Prolonged Litigation as ‘Abuse of Process of Law Limitation | Remedy Pursued Must Be Legally Available—Time Wasted on Non-Maintainable Review Cannot Justify Delay in Appeal: J&K High Court

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

Similar News