LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     05 February 2012

Mv act secs. 166 & 168

mv aCT sECS. 166 & 168

Negligence-Apportionment of -FIR, spot mahazar, etc., showing that due to bus stopping suddenly deceased hit it-Ocular evidence also showing that there was only four feet distance between bus and two wheeler ridden by deceased-Tribunal assigning 50% negligence to deceased on ground that deceased could have avoided by taking his vehicle to left or right side of road-improper-Negligene re-apportioned in the ratio of 80:20

KCCR 2012- 110



Learning

 1 Replies

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     08 February 2012

Whose is 80 and whose is 20?

According to traffic rules, it is the responsibility of the vehicle behind to maitain safe distance from the vehicle in front. Application of sudden brake cannot be termed negligence. There can be a variety of reasons for sudden braking. The reason for actual braking must be known if responsibility of the bus driver is to be determined. For instance if driver had stopped the bus suddenly to allow a bystander to get into the bus then the driver is clearly at fault.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register