20 September 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Motor Accident Claims- Contributory Negligence of Driver Can’t be Vicariously Attached to Passengers of Vehicle: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the road accident can’t be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car contributed to the accident.

Referring to a precedent, the court observed, the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be.

As regards the present case, the Court said that no fault could be attributed to the driver of the car while colliding with the offending truck which was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle to warn the incoming vehicular traffic.

In the present case, the appellant and four other persons (including her husband) were traveling in a four-wheeler that collided with an offending truck that was abandonly lying on the road without any whereabouts. Resultantly, except the appellant, other passengers died on the spot leading to the filing of a claim petitions under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the appellant and legal heirs of other deceased passengers.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) directed the owner of the offending truck and its insurer to jointly indemnify the appellants, however, reduced the compensation by 50% on the ground that the driver of the car had contributed to the accident because he failed to take appropriate preventive measures to avoid collision with the offending truck which was parked in the middle of the road.

Being aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the MACT's finding of a 50% reduction in the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and MACT, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that it would not be justifiable to reduce the compensation based on the fact that the driver contributed to the accident.

Upon placing reliance on the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1997), the Court said that “the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be.”

Moreover, the Court noted that the below courts committed an error upon holding that the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident had contributed to the accident. The court said that since the offending vehicle was parked on the road without taking due care and caution where there was not even the slightest possibility that the road would be illuminated by moonlight at the time of the accident therefore it would be improper to hold the deceased driver guilty for contributory negligence.

“it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law. The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision.”, the judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

According to the court, the courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence because to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission that materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.

“Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained. Hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of this Court's powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and ordered as follows:

“As a consequence, the deduction of 50% of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants on account of contributory negligence, as directed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The finding recorded by the Courts below on this issue is reversed as being perverse and unsustainable in the facts as well as in law. Resultantly, it is directed that there shall be no deduction from the compensation payable to the appellant-claimants who shall be entitled to the full compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court by the impugned judgment.”

Case- Sushma vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors.

2. Section 250 of BNSS | Court Has Discretion To Consider Discharge Plea Even After Prescribed Limit of 60 Days: Kerela High Court

The Kerela High Court has held that the limit of 60 days provided in section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is directory and not mandatory. The court further held that the period of 60 days will start from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.

Justice A. Badharudeen made this pronouncement while dealing with a revision petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein.

The petitioner was alleged to have had sexual intercourse with the victim on two different occasions on the promise of marriage.

The petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on a woman) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court dismissed the petition saying that there is a prima facie case and a trial is required to find the truth of the matter.

Court can extend the time for filing discharge petition

Under Section 250(1) of BNSS, the accused can file a petition for discharge. The provision is as follows:

250. Discharge: (1) The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232.

The Court referred to Section 330(1) of the BNSS for interpreting this provision. Section 330(1) says that the prosecution or accused 'shall' be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the document filed before the court within 30 days of the supply of such documents. The first proviso to the section says that the court in its discretion 'may' extend the time within which either side be called to confirm or deny the genuineness of the document supplied.

The court inferred from this that in Section 300(1), word “shall” is used, as the time limit given is mandatory. The legislature has inserted a proviso after this whereby the court may in its discretion relax the time limit.

However, in the case of Section 250(1), the word 'may' is used. The Court held that when the word 'may' is used, it is meant to be discretionary and when the word 'shall' is used, it is meant to be mandatory. That is why, the legislature has not provided a separate provision under which court can extend the time limit provided in Section 250(1).

“Therefore, even after expiry of sixty days, a petition for discharge can be considered by the court since the time limit is not mandatory and is only directory.”

Therefore, the court held that under Section 250(1), the Court has the discretion to extend the time limit beyond the prescribed limit of 60 days.

Legislative lacuna in cases where there is no committal

The court noted that there is a legislative lacuna in cases where there is no committal. It said that the 60 days for filing a petition of discharge is counted from the date of commitment of the case.

In many special courts like special courts under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, there is no stage of committal.

The Court in this matter referred to Section 262(1) of BNSS. This provision deals with discharge in a warrant trial case. In that section, it is mentioned that the accused in such cases may prefer an application of discharge within 60 days from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.

The Court held that in cases where there is no committal, this principle can be followed and the 60 days will be counted from the date of supply of documents. The Court added that this can be followed till the legislature makes appropriate amendments to clarify the position in such cases.

Case- Sajith vs. State of Kerela