Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 & 166 — Finding of contributory negligence

August 26th, 2013

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140 & 166 — Finding of contributory negligence — Basis of Scene Mahazar and post mortem report, Absence of corroborative evidence, Sustainability of — High Court based on `Scene Mahazar’ and post mortem report held that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased as well and liability for the accident was apportioned at the ratio of 50:50 — Held, there is no evidence on record to suggest any negligence on the part of the deceased — `Scene Mahazar’ also does not suggest any rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased — The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other — Post Mortem report reflects that deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of accident — The mere suspicion based on `Scene Mahazar’ and post mortem report cannot take the place of evidence, particularly, when the direct evidence like independent eye-witness,, (FIR), charge-sheet and F.I. statement are on record — Tribunal and the High Court erred in concluding that the said accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased as well, as the said conclusion was not based on evidence but based on mere presumption and surmises.

(Para 23, 25 to 27)

Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan[Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal Nos. 4945-4946/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20557-20558/2007)(02/07/2013), 2013(4) Supreme 709: 2013(8) SCALE 722: 2013(6) SLT 188 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.]

Entry Filed under: Legal Updates