Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi, JJ., while addressing a case of negligent driving, expressed that,

“…if the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable.”

An appeal was filed challenging the decision by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It was submitted that the deceased was driving his car and when he reached Tehsil Aonla, the bus of U.P.S.R.T.C was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed with the car which was being driven by the deceased.

His earning was Rs 95,960 per month and the legal heirs were dependent on him, therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs 1,80,00,000 with interest.


The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not.

Negligence can be both intentional or accidental though it is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that either side is negligent.

Elaborating further, it was stated that if the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply.

Contributory Negligence

A person who either contributes or is co-author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place and that amount will be decided from the compensation payable to him if he is injured and to legal representatives, if he dies in the accident.

Court’s opinion | Rash and Negligent Driving

Bench on noting the fact that the bus which was a bigger vehicle had to be more cautious, the instantaneous death of the driver of the car depicted that the vehicle driven by the respondent was being driven in rash and negligent manner, but the driver of the car was also considered negligent.

Lastly, the Court held that if U.P.S.R.T.C does not make payment within 30 days then only it will be liable for interest.

In view of the above, appeal was partly allowed. [U.P.S.R.T.C v. Anamika Deo, First Appeal from Order No. 1039 of 2021, decided on 14-2-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Appellant: Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, Awadhesh Kumar Saxena

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.