Case: Prem Lal Anand and Others v. Narendra Kumar and Others

The Supreme Court increased the compensation for a claimant who lost his wife in an accident. The collision occurred when the claimant and his wife, riding a motorcycle, attempted to overtake another tractor and collided with an over-speeding tractor.

A Bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol enhanced the compensation awarded to a claimant in a motor accident case. The claimant, who collided with an over-speeding tractor coming from the wrong side of the road while attempting to overtake another tractor, suffered injuries, and his wife, who was riding with him on the motorcycle, died in the accident that occurred in 1994.

“The record reveals that the driver of the tractor bearing No. UP 14-A 1933 maintained a slow speed, prompting the claimant-appellant to overtake. However, the driver of another tractor bearing No. UP 14-B 9603 was rash and negligent, not only overspeeding but also coming from the wrong side, resulting in the collision. Under the given facts and circumstances, merely attempting to overtake a vehicle cannot be considered an act of rashness or negligence, especially when there is no contrary evidence on record,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court ruling that upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order. The MACT had found both the claimant and the over-speeding tractor driver equally responsible for the accident and had awarded a compensation of ₹1,01,250 with 8 per cent interest.

Noting that the claimant’s wife died in the accident, the Supreme Court determined that the over-speeding tractor was driven rashly and negligently. Thus, attributing contributory negligence to the claimant was unjustified, the Court stated.

“…it is the claimant-appellants who lost a member of their family. Not only was the claimant-appellant, Prem Lal Anand, performing an everyday act of overtaking a vehicle, but he also suffered extensive injuries himself. Furthermore, it has been proven that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors together lead us to conclude that the finding of contributory negligence against appellant No.1 was erroneous and unjustified.”

The Court, therefore, increased the compensation amount to ₹11,25,000, with 12 per cent interest.