Holding

The doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to a minor absent a factual finding of negligent conduct, so the deduction of compensation is unlawful.

Summary

The appellant, a 17‑year‑old minor, was riding a two‑wheeler without a licence when he collided with a mini‑truck driven rashily by the respondent. He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 30,000 but reduced it to Rs 12,000 on the ground that the minor was contributorily negligent for not possessing a licence. The High Court upheld the reduction. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of contributory negligence cannot be applied to a child unless a factual finding shows that the child’s rash or negligent driving materially contributed to the accident; the mere absence of a licence does not constitute such negligence. Consequently, the deduction was unwarranted and the appellant was entitled to the full compensation of Rs 30,000 with interest.

Issues considered

Whether a minor can be held liable for contributory negligence solely for driving without a licence.
Whether the doctrine of contributory negligence applies to a child in a motor vehicle accident.
Whether the deduction of compensation on the basis of alleged contributory negligence is justified under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166, s. 173

Subjects

contributory negligenceminormotor vehicle accidentcompensationMotor Vehicles Actdriving licenceliability

Judgment

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 871

- ....
SUDHIR KUMAR RANA A
v.
SURINDER SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3321 of 2008)
MAY 6, 2008

- "' (S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)
B

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Ss. 166 and 173:
Contributory negligence - Motor Vehicle accident -
Claimant, a minor, driving two-wheeler met with an accident c
with a tractor driven rashly and negligently by respondentNo.1
-
"'
- Liability of a minor - Deduction of certain amount from
compensation as awarded by Tribunal on ground of
contributory negligence - Held: Doctrine of contributory
negligence not applicable to a minor with the same force as to

- 'f a adult person - If complainant is guilty of an act/omission
materially contributing to the accident resulting in injury and
D

damage, the doctrine of contributory negligence would apply
- In the instant case, no finding of fact has been arrived at by
the Courts below that the claimant was driving the two-wheeler
rashly and negligently - Only because the claimant was not E
having a driving licence, he would not be held guilty of
contributory negligence - Under the circumstances, the
claimant is entitled to the entire amount of compensation with
interest and no deduction from it on ground of contributory

- ~
negligence could be made.
Doctrines:
Doctrine of 'contributory negligence' - Applicability of.
F

Appellant, a minor, driving a two-wheeler met with
G
an accident with a mini truck, which was allegedly driven
rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. He filed a claim
,.I, petition on ground of suffering of multiple injury on his
body. T~ibunal, while awarding compensation of
871 H
~
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A Rs.30,000/-, found him guilty of contributory negligence ..... -
as he was not holding a driving licence. Therefore, it
ordered deduction of certain amount from the
compensation so awarded. Appeal preferred thereagainst
by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence
B the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Ordinarily, the doctrine of contributory
negligence is not applicable in case of children with the
c same force as in the case of adults. (Para - 4) [874-E]
1.2 This Court does not intend to lay down a law that
a child can never be guilty of contributory negligence but
ordinarily it is a question of fact. (Para - 5) [874-E, F]
Muthuswamy & Anr. vs. S.A.R. Annamalai & Ors. (1990)
0
ACJ 974 - relied on.
1.3 The question of contributory negligence would
arise only when both parties are found to be negligent.
(Para - 6) [874-G]
E 1.4 If the complainant must be guilty of an act or
omission which materially contributed to the accident and
resulted in injury and damage, the concept of contributory
negligence would apply. (Para - 7) [874-G, H; 875-A]

F New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Avinash (1998)
ACJ 322 (Raj.) - relied on.
"?" -
2.1 If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he
commits an offence. The same, by itself, m"ay not lead to a
finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been
G held by the Courts below that it was respondent No.1, the
driver of the mini-truck, which was being driven rashly
and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant
was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has
been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly
H
SUDHIR KUMAR RANA v. SURINDER SINGH & ORS. 873
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and A
negligently which contributed to the accident, this Court
failed to see as to how, only because he was not having a
licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory
negligence. The matter might have been different if by
reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had B
taken place. (Paras - 8 & 9) [876-8-E]
2.2 Appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs.30,000/-,
as awarded by the Tribunal, by way of compensation
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date
of the award till making of the payment. Even otherwise C
there is no reason as to why in view of the nature of the
injuries he has suffered, he should be deprived of even
the petty sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation.
(Para - 10) [876-E, F]
D
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3321
- y of 2008
From the Judgment dated 24.11.2006 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in M.AC APP. No. 928/2006
Manish Maini, Tushar Bakshi and Naresh Bakshi for the E
Appellant.

M .J. Paul for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was driving a two-wheeler bearing registration
No. DL-45 AQ 0731 on 30.10.2003. He was aged about 17 %
years. He met with an accident, as allegedly respondent No.1
was driving a mini-truck rashly and negligently. He suffered the G
following injuries in the said accident:
"1. Crush injury over right root.
2. Fracture fifth M.T. bone and joint.
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

"-
A 3. Fracture P.P. little toe. (Total 3 fractures)
4. Abrasions over left side trunk, right-foot, right-leg, right-
hand and left-knee
5. Profusely Bleeding.
6. Abrasions and blunt injuries all over body."
B
3. Appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The Tribunal
opined that as the appellant did not possess a driving licence,
he must be held to have contributed to the accident. Although a
c sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded by way of compensation, in
view of the finding that he was guilty of contributory negligence
on his part, found to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- only.
The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment has
dismissed the appeal preferred by him under Section 173 of
D the Act.
4. The question which arises for consideration is as to
whether the appellant can be said to have guilty of contributory
~
-
negligence.

E Ordinarily, the doctrine of contributory negligence is not
applicable in case of children with the same force as in the case ... _
of adults.

5. We do not intend to lay down a law that a child can never
be guilty of contributory negligence but ordinarily the same is a
F question of fact. [See Muthuswamy and another v. S.A.R.
Annamalai and others [1990 ACJ 974] T ..

6. A contributory negligence may be defined as negligence
. in not avoiding the consequences arising from the negligence
of some other person, when means and opportunity are afforded
G to do so. The question of contributory negligence would arise
only when both parties are found to be negligent.

7. The question is, negligence for what? If the complainant
must be guilty of an act or omission which materially contributed
H to the accident and resulted in injury and damage, the concept
SUDHIR KUMAR RANA v. SURINDER SINGH & ORS. 875
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

of contributory negligence would apply. [See New India A
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Avinash 1988 ACJ 322 (Raj.)]
In TO. Anthony v. Kavarnan & Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 748, it
was held
"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on B
the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured
as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong
doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of
the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such
a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to c
the injured for payment of the entire damages and the
injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or
any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish
the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately,
nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of
D
liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
+ 'f where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence
on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a
result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the
part of the injured which contributed to the accident is
referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured E
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not
defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part
but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory
negligence. F
,. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident,
and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies
negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was G
negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether
the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he
was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the
.,;, extent of his responsibility; that is his contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly
H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply "'
nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence
was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal
ought to have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion
B between composite negligence and contributory
negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said
error."
8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits
an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a
c finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held
by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which
was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say
that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding
of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler
D rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently
which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only ~ ...
because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be
guilty of contributory negligence.
9. The matter might have been different if by reason of his
E rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.
,.
10. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.
Appellant is entitled to the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of
F compensation with interest at the rate of 7%% per annum from
the date of the award till making of the payment. Even otherwise
there is no reason as to why in view of the nature of the injuries
,. '

he has suffered, he should be deprived of even the petty sum of
Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation. The appeal is allowed
with the aforementioned direction. No costs.
G
S.K.S. Appeal allowed

)>..