In a significant step towards improving road safety, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling held that sudden braking on highways amounts to a form of negligence. In their ruling the bench granted an amount of ₹91,39,253 as compensation to the appellant who lost a leg in a gruesome accident on a highway.

Facts

The case concerned a young engineering student who tragically lost his leg in a road accident. On 07.01.2013, while riding a motorcycle with a friend as a pillion rider, the appellant collided with a car that abruptly pulled the brakes. The impact of this was so terrifying that he fell off his bike onto the road, and a bus coming from behind ran over his leg, leading to its amputation.

Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹91.62 lakhs in compensation but deducted 20% due to the appellant’s contributory negligence, including riding without a valid driving licence.

Differing with the MACT on their quantum of compensation, the Madras High Court significantly reduced the amount to ₹58.53 lakhs altering not only the quantum but the liability distribution as well. They placed 40% negligence on the car driver, 30% on the bus driver, and 30% on the appellant himself.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar, who presided over the bench, increased the car driver’s liability from 40% to 50%, the bus driver was held liable upto 30% for driving over the leg of the appellant and his own liability for not possessing a valid license was reduced from 30% to 20%.

Emphasizing the need for caution and safe driving on highways where speed limits are often ignored the Apex Court stated,

“On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution. Both Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver was also negligent. After considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively.”

Consequently, the Supreme court held the car and bus drivers jointly negligent, reducing the appellant’s contributory negligence to 20%.

The Court considered the appellant's notional monthly income as ₹20,000 and, applying future prospects and a multiplier of 18, assessed the loss of earnings at ₹60,48,000. It also awarded ₹18 lakhs towards attendant charges and ₹5 lakhs for future medical expenses.

Regarding marriage prospects, the court also enhanced compensation to ₹5 lakhs from the previous amount of ₹2.5 lakhs.

Concluding that, “the appellant is liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 20%... thus, compensation payable to the appellant is ₹91,39,253/-.” the bench held the car driver 50% liable and the bus driver 30% liable.

Furthermore, the Court disagreed with the High Court’s reduction of attendant charges from ₹18 lakhs to ₹5 lakhs, noting the severity of the injury and the appellant’s lifelong need for assistance following the amputation.

This ruling reaffirms the duty of vehicle operators to provide adequate warnings on highways .

Case Details: S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.