The Madras High Court has ruled that merely driving at a high speed on a road specifically designed for fast-moving traffic cannot automatically be treated as negligent conduct while deciding liability in a motor accident claim.
The ruling came while the Court dismissed an appeal filed by Tata AIG General Insurance Company challenging a compensation award of ₹2.92 crore granted to the family of an Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist who lost his life in a road accident.
The case arose from the death of RSP Pugazhenthi, a scientist at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram. On December 31, 2019, he was travelling on his motorcycle along the Minjur-Vandalur Outer Ring Road when his vehicle struck the rear of a stationary Tata Ace goods vehicle.
According to the case records, the goods vehicle had been parked on the left side of the carriageway near the Morey overbridge without adequate warning signs or safety measures. The collision caused fatal head injuries, leading to Pugazhenthi’s death at the scene.
His wife, minor son and mother subsequently approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Thiruvallur seeking compensation. The tribunal concluded that the accident resulted from the negligent manner in which the Tata Ace had been parked on a roadway intended for uninterrupted, high-speed movement and awarded the family ₹2.92 crore.
Questioning that decision, the insurer argued before the High Court that the deceased should also bear part of the responsibility, contending that he was travelling at excessive speed and could have avoided the collision. It sought a finding of contributory negligence against him.
The High Court declined to accept the contention.
The Bench observed that the accident occurred on the Outer Ring Road, where vehicles are expected to maintain higher speeds than on ordinary roads. It further noted that the Tata Ace had been left stationary on the lane generally used by two-wheelers and close to the entrance of an elevated stretch where visibility was restricted.
The judges remarked that while lower speeds may reduce the likelihood of accidents in many situations, the nature of the road in question was different. A high-speed corridor is intended to facilitate faster traffic movement, and motorists entering such roads are expected to travel accordingly.
The Court further observed that treating such speed as negligence would be misplaced because slow-moving vehicles on a ring road could themselves disrupt the normal flow of traffic.
Holding that the improper parking of the Tata Ace was the primary cause of the accident, the Bench also took note of the police investigation, which had culminated in a final report against the driver of the goods vehicle.
Finding no basis to attribute any contributory negligence to the deceased, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s conclusion that the accident was entirely attributable to the negligent parking of the Tata Ace. As the insurer had not challenged the amount of compensation awarded, the Court affirmed the ₹2.92 crore award and dismissed the appeal.
