By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn’t Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > News > Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn’t Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving
News

Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn’t Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: December 22, 2024 3:15 pm
Amna Kabeer
11 months ago
Share
Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn't Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving
Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn't Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving
SHARE

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has made an observation. The mere act of overtaking on the road cannot be deemed as rash or negligent driving. The judgment came from a bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol. This was while deciding an appeal related to an accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The case originated from a tragic accident where the appellant, along with his wife, was struck by two tractors while riding a motorcycle. The wife tragically died at the scene, and the husband sustained serious injuries. The couple was engaged in a prosperous business, earning a substantial income.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially awarded the appellant a compensation of Rs. 1,01,250/-, far below the claimed Rs. 12,00,000/-, attributing contributory negligence to the victims due to the act of overtaking. The High Court later revised the compensation slightly, applying a higher multiplier but did not fully address the issue of contributory negligence.

During trial

The Supreme Court, however, overturned the findings of contributory negligence. The bench noted that overtaking is a routine action on roads and cannot be automatically classified as rash or negligent without supporting evidence. The Court pointed out that the accident was caused by a second tractor, which was being driven recklessly and on the wrong side of the road.

Citing precedents like Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer & Anr. and Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karamasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors., the Court emphasized that contributory negligence applies only when the plaintiff’s actions significantly contribute to the harm suffered. The mere act of overtaking does not meet this standard.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of compensation, criticizing the tribunal’s decision to use a multiplier of 9 and instead applying a multiplier of 15. Additionally, the Court factored in future prospects when calculating the final compensation, resulting in a substantial increase to Rs. 11,25,000/- from the originally awarded Rs. 1,01,250/-.

The ruling underscores the Court’s stance. Everyday driving actions like overtaking should not be hastily labeled as rash or negligent. Even  without a thorough examination of the circumstances.

You Might Also Like

Financial Security Alone Not Important But Physical And Mental Factors To Maintain Custody of Child: Punjab And Haryana HC

Supreme Court PIL Seeks Indian Army Deployment For Landslide Rescue On NH 66 In Karnataka

Cash In Bank Account Is ‘Property’ Liable For Attachment: Kerala High Court

Only Family Court Can Decide Marital Status Disputes: Orissa HC

Supreme Court Orders Husband To Pay Rs. 2 Crores As Alimony

Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Supreme Court Enforces Stricter Conditions for Tree Felling In Public Projects, Cites Right To Healthy Environment Supreme Court Enforces Stricter Conditions for Tree Felling In Public Projects, Cites Right To Healthy Environment
Next Article Kerala High Court Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petition Challenging Kerala HC’s Ruling On Melshanthis Appointment At Sabarimala And Malikappuram Temple
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Calcutta High Court Rules Section 354A IPC Cannot Be Applied Against Women
News

Calcutta High Court Rules Section 354A IPC Cannot Be Applied Against Women

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
11 months ago
Interest Payable on Delayed Retirement Benefits: Bombay HC
Supreme Court Reaffirms Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Defences of Bona Fide Purchaser and Lack of Notice Not Applicable
Caste-based Identities In School Names Leads To Division and Enmity: Madras HC
Terms Of The Contract Is Primary For The Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Who Is Eligible for Free Legal Aid Under the Legal Services Authorities Act? (Section 12)

Calcutta High Court Rules Section 354A IPC Cannot Be Applied Against Women

Calcutta HC Takes Up Pleas for Independent Probe in Law College Rape Case Amid SIT Investigation

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?