Difference between revisions of "U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS ISLAMUDDIN on 7 July, 2009"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 143648
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "'''U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant (s) Vs Islamuddin ...Respondent (s)''' '''QUESTION OF LAW:CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ''' ● The doctrine of contributo...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant (s)
 
'''U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant (s)
 +
'''
  
Vs
+
'''Vs'''
 
 
Islamuddin ...Respondent (s)'''
 
  
 +
'''Islamuddin ...Respondent (s)
 +
'''
  
 
'''QUESTION OF LAW:CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
 
'''QUESTION OF LAW:CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Line 47: Line 48:
  
 
● It also stated that around Rs. 2,22,000 had been deposited and the remaining balance shall be deposited within six weeks to MACT and the respondent (claimant) shall be permitted to withdraw the amount on the terms stipulated by MACT.
 
● It also stated that around Rs. 2,22,000 had been deposited and the remaining balance shall be deposited within six weeks to MACT and the respondent (claimant) shall be permitted to withdraw the amount on the terms stipulated by MACT.
 +
 +
 +
 +
*References*

Latest revision as of 21:26, 2 August 2020

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant (s)

Vs

Islamuddin ...Respondent (s)

QUESTION OF LAW:CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

● The doctrine of contributory negligence states that if a person gets injured in an act which is also caused by his own negligence then he will not be entitled for compensation from the other party whose negligence also led to the happening of that act. It basically means an act caused by negligence of both the parties. It is the ignorance of due care and attention on part of the plaintiff to avoid the consequences of the defendant’s negligence. It is also based on the concept of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ which means the injury that is sustained due to one’s personal consent.[1]

● Under the rule of contributory negligence, if a person gets badly injured in an act where he had been slightly negligent, then he may not be entitled for claim from the other party on part of the damages suffered by him.


FACTS:

1. On 3 December, 2002, the respondent sustained injuries in a vehicle accident near G.T. Road flyover, Shahdara, Delhi.

2. The respondent then filed a claim petition in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal(MACT), Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

3. The learned MACT of the said court fixed the amount of compensation to be Rs.3,00,598 but since the judges noted that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence, so they deducted 40% amount from the amount decided for compensation, thereby making it Rs. 1,80,358 (approx.) payable by the present appellant to the respondent (claimant).

4. The respondent (claimant) then filed an appeal against the MACT judgment in the High Court for the deduction of the amount payable to him as compensation. The High Court held that the reasons mentioned by the MACT for making the deduction in the amount caused due to contributory negligence were sufficient, thereby ordering the present appellant to pay full compensation amount to the respondent (claimant).

5. Against the order of the High Court, the present appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme court.


ISSUE:

The present appellant was not satisfied by the decision of the High Court, which stated that there was not sufficient reason for deducting the 40% amount from the total amount payable.


SUPREME COURT DECISION:

● The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there was no appearance from the respondent in spite of the service of the notice issued.

● The court also noted that the High Court has discarded other reasons given by the MACT, Karkardooma in relation to the contributory negligence. According to the evidence given by the driver in his examination, it showed that the contributory negligence cannot be given preference over the evidence of the claimant, however there were other reasons also on the basis of which MACT had directed the deduction for contributory negligence which were ignored by the High Court.

● The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was contributory negligence on part of the claimant and considering the nature of the accident, the court held the appellant (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation) liable to give compensation of Rs. 2,35,000 with 6% interest from the date of accident, to the claimant.[2]

● It also stated that around Rs. 2,22,000 had been deposited and the remaining balance shall be deposited within six weeks to MACT and the respondent (claimant) shall be permitted to withdraw the amount on the terms stipulated by MACT.


  • References*
  • Contributory Negligence, available at: http://www.https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/contributory-negligence.asp (Last visited on July 24, 2020)
  • [2009] INSC 1154 (7 July 2009)