LI Network
Published on: 11 August 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Division Bench comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and K. Manmadha Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has delineated the difference between composite and contributory negligence in a recent case.
The context for this clarification was a petition contesting the judgment and award issued by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, a decision partly upheld.
In the case under consideration, V. Jayachandra Naidu and his companion Sathyanarayana were driving in a car when it was struck by a Gas Tanker lorry owned by V. Madhavan. The collision resulted in the fatalities of both Naidu and Sathyanarayana.
Claimants, representing Sathyanarayana’s estate, alleged that the lorry’s driver was recklessly and negligently driving, leading to the accident. They sought compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- ($33,500) based on Sathyanarayana’s age, occupation, and salary.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ruled that the accident was indeed due to the lorry’s driver’s rash and negligent driving, causing the deaths of both individuals.
The appeal questioned whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the car’s driver and whether there was any composite negligence involved.
The court drew upon legal precedents and relevant cases to elucidate the difference between composite and contributory negligence.
The principle of composite negligence arises when multiple parties independently breach their duty to the plaintiff, leading to distinct injuries. Each party is responsible only for the damage they caused.
On the other hand, contributory negligence arises when the claimant’s own actions or omissions materially contribute to the damages and can be termed as negligence.
The court also emphasized that in motor accident claim cases, strict principles of evidence and standards of proof akin to criminal trials are not applicable.
The standard of proof in these cases is the preponderance of probabilities rather than the more stringent “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.
Furthermore, the court asserted that although there is no provision for reservation in judicial appointments at the High Court and Supreme Court levels, adequate representation of various sections of society would enhance trust, credibility, and acceptance of the judiciary.
In light of the above discussions, the court determined the compensation due to the claimants. The bench awarded Rs.40,000) each to claimants 1 to 3 and the deceased’s daughter for the loss of consortium (totaling Rs.1,60,000).
The mother of the deceased was entitled to Rs.6,50,000 while his brother and daughter were each entitled to two lakhs. The remainder was awarded to the widow of the deceased.
In conclusion, the bench dismissed the appeal while providing comprehensive clarification on the concepts of composite and contributory negligence and determining appropriate compensation based on the case’s circumstances.