The Hindu Business Line : Negligence apportioned

HERE is a snatch from a recent news story (www.hindu.com, dated November 22): "There was nothing to prevent Mohanasundari from falling to her death from her college bus. No door, no armrest. When the driver applied the brakes suddenly, the Sathyabhama Engineering College lecturer was thrown out of her seat and fell off the bus. The rear wheel of the vehicle crushed her to death." A similar fall, though not fatal, was decided by the Madras High Court on November 11: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd vs N. Chitra and S. Munusamy (Driver). Chitra, a Postal Assistant, was travelling on November 29, 1998, in a bus belonging to TNSTC. The driver negotiated a curve `in a rash and negligent manner,' as she narrated. As a result, she was `thrown away from the bus through the rear side door' and sustained head injuries apart from fracture of the right leg.

She filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Coimbatore, seeking a compensation of Rs 2,00,000. TNSTC resisted the claim saying that Chitra, "who was standing near the rear footboard tried to hand over her bag to a passenger, who was sitting near her, without holding the iron bar provided in the bus and lost her balance, fell down and sustained injuries."

Also, when the driver of the bus came down from the bus, he saw that the claimant was sitting in the road, therefore the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident, said the TNSTC.

The Tribunal studied the oral and documentary evidence and "found that the accident had happened due to the negligence on the part of both the claimant and driver." On September 23, 2003, the MACT `fixed the contributory negligence and awarded a sum of Rs 45,000 as compensation.' Aggrieved by the order, TNSTC approached the High Court, where it submitted that Chitra did not hold the iron bar, and that "she herself had invited the accident".

Justices P. D. Dinakaran and T. V. Masilamani heard the case and said: "A reasonably careful driver does not always assume that other users of the road, whether drivers or others, will behave with reasonable care and he guards against the negligence of others when experience shows such negligence should be common. In other words, even assuming that due to the negligence of the driver or the passenger of the bus, who fell down on the road, the fact itself would not be a licence or justification for the driver of the bus not to perform the duty cast on him carefully and not to avert the accident." Negligence is the non-exercising of `normal care and diligence', reminded the court, and said that a man of ordinary prudence is presumed to be both free from over-apprehension and over-confidence.

The court noted that after the accident, Chitra suffered from `frequent headaches' and endured `severe pain while walking or climbing steps'. If the driver of the bus had driven carefully, the accident would not have happened; also, if Chitra had held the iron bar provided in the bus, she could have averted the accident, reasoned the court.

The Tribunal had rightly, therefore, apportioned the negligence between Chitra and the driver, and awarded compensation as per medical bills, said the court. "The pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is a resultant and permanent fact occasioned by the nature of injuries received by the claimant and the ordeal she had to undergo," observed the court, dismissing TNSTC's appeal.

LawLane@TheHindu.co.in

D. Murali

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | General Insurance | Law Lane

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page