SC finds driver who suddenly braked on highway primarily liable for 2017 accident, enhances compensation to victim
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar made the remarks while enhancing the compensation payable to S Mohammed Hakkim, who was a third-year Engineering student in Coimbatore at the time of the accident.
The accident happened on January 7, 2017, when Hakkim was riding on a motorcycle with his friend on the pillion. A car that was ahead of them suddenly applied the brakes, and Hakkim's motorcycle crashed into the car and fell towards the right side of the road. A bus drove over him, and his left leg had to be amputated during treatment.
The top court held that Hakkim had a role in the accident by not maintaining the necessary distance, but held that the 'root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver.'
'The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, the car driver is not liable. On the other hand, the car driver admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct,' the SC said in its judgment.
'But at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle. On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected, and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution,' the court said.
Liability for negligence
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) fixed the compensation at Rs 91.62 lakh, but reduced it to Rs 73.29 lakh after attributing 20 per cent contributory negligence to Hakkim. MACT ordered the insurer of the bus to pay the amount, while exonerating the car insurer of all liabilities.
On appeal, the Madras High Court held that since the accident occurred due to the car driver suddenly applying the brakes, he should also be made liable. The high court fixed the liability of the car driver, the bus driver, and Hakkim as 40 per cent, 30 per cent, and 30 per cent, respectively. The court also reduced the compensation payable to the motorcyclist from Rs 73.29 lakh to Rs 58.53 lakh along with interest.
The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation, and directed that Hakkim be paid Rs. 91.39 lakh along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 'Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them, ie, respondent no. 3 (car insurer) to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 (bus insurer) to the extent of 30%, respectively.'
The court directed that the amount be paid to him within four weeks of the order.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to first test maintainability for reopening 2022 PMLA verdict
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will first examine whether the review petitions filed against its 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, which upheld the Enforcement Directorate's sweeping powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), are legally maintainable before proceeding to consider the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. The bench posted the matter for hearing on August 6, making it clear that the preliminary objections raised by ED must be addressed first. (ANI PHOTO) A three-judge bench led by Justice Surya Kant emphasised that the scope of a review jurisdiction hinges on certain fixed parameters and therefore, the petitioners demanding a reconsideration of the 2022 judgment must cross the first hurdle of maintainability. 'Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,' noted the bench, also comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, hearing a bunch of petitions seeking a complete review of the impugned judgment. The bench posted the matter for hearing on August 6, making it clear that the preliminary objections raised by ED must be addressed first. 'Review has limitations…You will (petitioners) proceed on the premise as if the entire matter has been reopened... but they (ED) are justified in raising preliminary issues… first what we will suggest is you address preliminary issues,' the bench told senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhri, leading counsel for the petitioners in the matter. The court's observation came during a brief hearing on the clutch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, a decision that has since become a constitutional flashpoint for its endorsement of the ED's broad powers related to arrest, search, seizure and the attachment of property. ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, argued that the review jurisdiction of the court is narrow and cannot be used as a backdoor to file an appeal. Raising three preliminary objections, the ASG contended that the review petitions must be dismissed unless they clearly demonstrate an 'error apparent on the face of the record' in the 2022 verdict. He read out the three objections framed by the agency -- Whether the review petitions meet the threshold of an 'error apparent on the face of the record; whether the petitions amount to an appeal in disguise and whether the review can be confined only to two issues, as mandated by the court's August 25, 2022 order. By the August 2022 order, the top court had agreed to take a re-look at only two issues -- the supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the accused and the constitutionality of the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA. The 2022 order issuing notice in the review petition, filed by Congress lawmaker Karti Chidambaram, had noted that these two issues required reconsideration. During the hearing, Sibal contested the ED's claim that the review was limited to two issues, pointing out that no such restriction was recorded in the August 2022 order. He also urged the bench to tag a separate but related batch of cases, where the correctness of the Vijay Madanlal verdict had been raised, with the current review proceedings. That batch had remained dormant following the retirement of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in December 2023. In this batch of petitions, sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA have been assailed, besides a reconsideration of the entire 2022 judgment. These sections relate to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers to summon witnesses, extract confessions and prosecute for providing false information. Responding, Justice Kant advised Sibal to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India to seek listing of that batch. The petitioners, in their list of 13 issues submitted to the court, have sought reconsideration of key aspects of its 2022 ruling, arguing that the judgment diluted the offence of money laundering by misreading a pertinent provision, retrospectively applied the law in violation of fundamental rights, and wrongly upheld the ED's powers to compel statements under Section 50, undermining protections against self-incrimination. They have also challenged the court's classification of ED officers as non-police personnel, non-supply of the ECIR to the accused, constitutional validity of the reverse burden of proof for securing bail, which, they claim, strips accused persons of basic due process safeguards.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Anil Ambani summoned by ED in ₹17,000 crore loan fraud investigation
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has summoned Anil Ambani, chairman and managing director of Reliance Group, for questioning in connection with its ongoing investigation into an alleged `17,000-crore loan fraud case. He's been asked to appear on August 5 at ED headquarters in the Capital, people in the know told ET. ED last week carried out searches at multiple entities and individuals linked to Anil Ambani's Reliance Group across 35 locations in Mumbai, covering 50 companies and 25 individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In a related development, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) shared with ED and two other agencies the findings of a separate probe, launched by it into alleged diversion of `10,000 crore by Reliance Infrastructure (R Infra). Sebi's report, accessed by ET, alleged R Infra diverted a large amount of money disguised as intercorporate deposits (ICDs) to Reliance Group units through CLE Pvt Ltd, an undisclosed related party company. CLE is said to be the 'C' company that had cropped up during investigation and was the subject of much speculation. The engineering, procurement and construction firm has its office at Nehru Road, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai.A person close to Reliance Group questioned the findings. 'Reliance Infrastructure publicly disclosed this matter on February 9, and Sebi did not make any independent discovery. Reliance Infra had an exposure of Rs 6,500 crore. The allegation that the diverted amount is Rs 10,000 crore only serves to sensationalise the magnitude and is not based on facts,' the person told ET. 'When the exposure was Rs 6,500 crore, how can the diversion be Rs 10,000 crore? Reliance Infra diligently pursued recovery of its dues in this matter. Reliance Infra arrived at a settlement to recover its entire exposure of Rs 6,500 crore through mandatory mediation proceedings conducted by a retired Supreme Court Judge and filed before the Bombay High Court, the person said.'Odisha distribution companies contemplated in the settlement are operational, and their recovery is pending before the courts,' he added. 'This amount is fully recoverable, contrary to the allegations.' The person also denied receipt of any notice from Sebi on the matter. In the second week of May, Sebi sent a formal communication to ED, the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to look into the matter independently. The market regulator's investigation found alleged non-compliance with approval and disclosure norms on related party transactions. 'This camouflaged the material diversion of funds to the undisclosed related part as genuine business transactions,' according to the Sebi regulator said non-compliance with statutory provisions resulted in R Infra 'withholding crucial information in its financial statements with respect to diversion of funds for the ultimate benefit of its promoter and related entities.' It added that 'by considering CLE as a third party company, R Infra avoided accurate and meaningful disclosures of specific fair value adjustments… and thereby misstated the financial statements… the misstatement continues till date.'Company dealings According to the Sebi report, R Infra had various financial dealings with CLE in the form of ICDs, investments in equity and corporate guarantees. As of March 31, 2022, this amounted to Rs 8,302 crore. Sebi's investigations are for the period between FY16 and FY23. The report said that from FY17 to FY21, R Infra had written off Rs 10,110 crore on account of fair value adjustment, provisions, impairment added that R Infra 'continued to provide advances to CLE despite recognising incapacity of CLE to repay the loans, that is, even after creating provision of doubtful debts in one year, they continued to extend loans in the same or subsequent years.' The Sebi report said that from FY13 to FY23, total outstanding annual expenditure on CLE by R Infra was 25-90% of the latter's total assets. The markets regulator said R Infra allegedly did not disclose CLE as its related party in order to avoid having to obtain approval from the shareholder and audit committees, and the checks and balances imposed on related-party transactions as per law. Sebi found CLE to be a related party of R Infra on the basis of documentation. These included submissions made by CLE to Yes Bank in order to avail of loans acknowledging Reliance Infra is one of its promoters. Reliance Infra audit committee meeting minutes mention CLE as a group company. Signatories of CLE's bank accounts were all having email IDs from the Reliance ADA group domain, that is, @ Other supporting data include statements of key management personnel (KMPs) recorded during the Sebi investigation. Also, directors and KMPs appointed in CLE were directors and executives of Reliance Group. Sebi's report alleged that Anil Ambani, by virtue of his position as chairman of Reliance Group (formerly Reliance ADAG), held over 40% shareholding in Reliance Infrastructure entities in which he had significant control and influence till March 2019. He was also nonexecutive chairman and director in R Infra till March 25, 2022.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Anil Ambani summoned by ED in ₹17,000 crore loan fraud investigation
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has summoned Anil Ambani , chairman and managing director of Reliance Group , for questioning in connection with its ongoing investigation into an alleged `17,000-crore loan fraud case . He's been asked to appear on August 5 at ED headquarters in the Capital, people in the know told last week carried out searches at multiple entities and individuals linked to Anil Ambani's Reliance Group across 35 locations in Mumbai, covering 50 companies and 25 individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ).In a related development, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) shared with ED and two other agencies the findings of a separate probe, launched by it into alleged diversion of `10,000 crore by Reliance Infrastructure (R Infra). Sebi's report, accessed by ET, alleged R Infra diverted a large amount of money disguised as intercorporate deposits (ICDs) to Reliance Group units through CLE Pvt Ltd, an undisclosed related party is said to be the 'C' company that had cropped up during investigation and was the subject of much engineering, procurement and construction firm has its office at Nehru Road, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai.A person close to Reliance Group questioned the findings. 'Reliance Infrastructure publicly disclosed this matter on February 9, and Sebi did not make any independent discovery. Reliance Infra had an exposure of Rs 6,500 crore. The allegation that the diverted amount is Rs 10,000 crore only serves to sensationalise the magnitude and is not based on facts,' the person told ET. 'When the exposure was Rs 6,500 crore, how can the diversion be Rs 10,000 crore? Reliance Infra diligently pursued recovery of its dues in this Infra arrived at a settlement to recover its entire exposure of Rs 6,500 crore through mandatory mediation proceedings conducted by a retired Supreme Court Judge and filed before the Bombay High Court, the person said.'Odisha distribution companies contemplated in the settlement are operational, and their recovery is pending before the courts,' he added. 'This amount is fully recoverable, contrary to the allegations.' The person also denied receipt of any notice from Sebi on the the second week of May, Sebi sent a formal communication to ED, the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to look into the matter independently. The market regulator's investigation found alleged non-compliance with approval and disclosure norms on related party transactions. 'This camouflaged the material diversion of funds to the undisclosed related part as genuine business transactions,' according to the Sebi regulator said non-compliance with statutory provisions resulted in R Infra 'withholding crucial information in its financial statements with respect to diversion of funds for the ultimate benefit of its promoter and related entities.'It added that 'by considering CLE as a third party company, R Infra avoided accurate and meaningful disclosures of specific fair value adjustments… and thereby misstated the financial statements… the misstatement continues till date.'Company dealingsAccording to the Sebi report, R Infra had various financial dealings with CLE in the form of ICDs, investments in equity and corporate guarantees. As of March 31, 2022, this amounted to Rs 8,302 crore. Sebi's investigations are for the period between FY16 and report said that from FY17 to FY21, R Infra had written off Rs 10,110 crore on account of fair value adjustment, provisions, impairment added that R Infra 'continued to provide advances to CLE despite recognising incapacity of CLE to repay the loans, that is, even after creating provision of doubtful debts in one year, they continued to extend loans in the same or subsequent years.'The Sebi report said that from FY13 to FY23, total outstanding annual expenditure on CLE by R Infra was 25-90% of the latter's total markets regulator said R Infra allegedly did not disclose CLE as its related party in order to avoid having to obtain approval from the shareholder and audit committees, and the checks and balances imposed on related-party transactions as per found CLE to be a related party of R Infra on the basis of documentation. These included submissions made by CLE to Yes Bank in order to avail of loans acknowledging Reliance Infra is one of its promoters. Reliance Infra audit committee meeting minutes mention CLE as a group company. Signatories of CLE's bank accounts were all having email IDs from the Reliance ADA group domain, that is, @ supporting data include statements of key management personnel (KMPs) recorded during the Sebi investigation . Also, directors and KMPs appointed in CLE were directors and executives of Reliance report alleged that Anil Ambani, by virtue of his position as chairman of Reliance Group (formerly Reliance ADAG), held over 40% shareholding in Reliance Infrastructure entities in which he had significant control and influence till March 2019. He was also nonexecutive chairman and director in R Infra till March 25, 2022.
