The Madras High Court has determined that driving at high speeds on roads designed for such travel does not automatically constitute negligence in motor accident cases. This decision came while the Court dismissed an appeal by Tata AIG General Insurance Company contesting a compensation award of ₹2.92 crore to the family of an Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist, who tragically lost his life in a road mishap [Tata AIG Vs P Ammu].
A division bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and K Rajasekar delivered this finding, emphasizing that the mere act of speeding on a highway does not imply negligence per se. The deceased, RSP Pugazhenthi, was an ISRO scientist stationed at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram. On December 31, 2019, while riding his two-wheeler on the Minjur-Vandalur Bypass Outer Ring Road, Pugazhenthi collided with a stationary Tata Ace goods vehicle.
This goods vehicle had been improperly parked on the left side of the road near the Morey overbridge, without sufficient warning signals. The collision resulted in severe head injuries that claimed Pugazhenthi’s life instantly. Following this, his wife, minor son, and mother sought recompense from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thiruvallur.
The Tribunal concluded that the accident stemmed from the negligent parking of the Tata Ace on a road intended for high-speed travel, subsequently awarding the family ₹2.92 crore in damages. However, Tata AIG challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the deceased bore partial blame due to his high-speed driving, thus seeking a ruling of contributory negligence.
The High Court dismissed the insurer’s claim, observing that the accident occurred on the Outer Ring Road, an area where high-speed travel is routine. The Court also noted that the Tata Ace was parked in a lane typically used by two-wheelers and at a point on the elevated road where visibility was compromised.
More Read
“While it’s true that driving at a reduced speed could prevent some accidents, the location of this incident was a zone intended for high-speed travel,” the Court explained. The Bench further remarked that Pugazhenthi might have entered the elevated corridor at considerable speed, which was in line with traffic expectations on such roads.
The Court concluded that the negligent parking of the Tata Ace was the primary cause of the accident. It was also noted that the police had filed a final report against the driver of the goods vehicle, reinforcing this conclusion. Consequently, the Bench found no basis to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased and upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the accident was solely due to the negligent parking of the Tata Ace.
As the compensation amount was not contested, the Court confirmed the award and dismissed the appeal. Advocate Vinod K represented the insurance company, while Advocate CK Chandrasekkar appeared for the claimants.
