The Delhi High Court has affirmed the MACT finding that the mere fact that a vehicle collides with another from behind does not automatically establish contributory negligence, holding that liability in motor accident claims must be determined on the basis of the evidence and surrounding circumstances.
Justice Anish Dayal rejected appeals filed by Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., which had challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s finding that the driver of a Canter truck was solely responsible for a fatal accident on the Yamuna Expressway in 2013. The insurer argued that since the Swift car struck the Canter from the rear, the driver of the car should also be held negligent.
The Court, however, relied on the testimony of an eyewitness, who stated that the Canter had suddenly swerved into the Swift car’s lane and applied emergency brakes, causing the collision and dragging the car for nearly 100 metres. The witness’s testimony was found to be reliable and had withstood cross-examination.
The High Court also noted that the insurer had failed to lead any independent evidence or examine the driver of the offending vehicle to establish contributory negligence. Further, the Canter driver had been chargesheeted in the criminal case arising out of the accident.
Rejecting the insurer’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 765, the Court held that the judgment “cannot be applied as a formulaic principle, but applies on the specific facts of the case.”
The Court reiterated that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry and negligence is to be assessed on the test of preponderance of probabilities, rather than by mechanically applying presumptions based on the point of impact.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Canter driver and dismissed the insurer’s plea to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased driver of the Swift car. The Court enhanced the compensation payable to his family from ₹13.50 lakh to ₹16.03 lakh, enhancing the award by ₹2.52 lakh while retaining interest at 9% per annum. It directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest before the MACT within four weeks for release to the claimants.
