'Driver Must Give Signal Before Stopping On Highway' : Supreme Court Awards 91 Lakh Compensation To Youth Who Lost Leg In Accident

Sudden braking of a vehicle in a highway, where vehicles are expected to go fast, can amount to negligence, obseved the Supreme Court, while enhancing the compensation of a young man, who lost his leg in a motor accident.

He was riding a motoro cycle, when the car ahead of him applied the brakes suddenly. This led to the motor-bike dashing against the car and the appellant falling on the road. A bus, which was coming from behind, ran over his leg. His leg had to be amputated. The appellant was a 20-year-old engineering student at the time of the accident(2013).

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded ₹91.62 lakhs but deducted 20% on account of the appellant's contributory negligence (including riding without a valid license), reducing the compensation to ₹73.29 lakhs. The Madras High Court, in appeal, drastically reduced this figure to ₹58.53 lakhs, modifying both the quantum and liability distribution, placing 40% negligence on the car driver, 30% on the bus driver, and 30% on the appellant himself.

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar enhanced the car driver's liability from 40% to 50%. The bus driver, who ran over the appellant's leg, was held 30% liable. The appellant's contributory negligence, including failure to maintain a safe distance and not possessing a valid driving licence was limited to 20%, reduced from the 30% attributed by the High Court.

Partially modifying the Madras High Court's ruling, the Court granted Rs. 91,39,253/- compensation to the appellant, holding that the sudden and unanticipated braking by the car driver was the proximate and primary cause of the accident.

“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.”, the court said.

His monthly notional income was taken as Rs 20,000/- and applying a multiplier of 18 and 40% future prospects, Rs. 60, 48,000/- was fixed as the loss of earnings. Rs 18 lakhs was fixed as the attendant charges and Rs 5 lakhs for future medical expenses.

Towards the loss of marriage prospects, the Court enhanced the compensation as Rs 5 lakhs from Rs 2.5 lakhs.

“the appellant is liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 20% and thus, compensation payable to the appellant is Rs. 91,39,253/- (Rs.1,14,24,066 – 20% i.e. Rs.22,84,813) along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them i.e., respondent no.3 to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 to the extent of 30%, respectively. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant within four weeks from the date of this order.”, the court ordered.

The Court also objected to the High Court's finding that about the reduction of the attendant charges from Rs. 18 Lakhs, determined by the MACT, to Rs. 5 Lakhs. Instead, the Court upheld the Rs. 18 Lakhs towards the attendant charges, considering the fact that the Appellant lost his entire left leg, which was amputated from waist downwards, which means that he would require assistance throughout his life to perform the basic daily routine.

Cause Title: S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Gokulakrisnan Sr, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar.a, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Ms. Tanisha Gopal, Adv.