Negligence in road traffic laws hinges on a driver’s failure to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. One of the most contentious issues is whether failing to signal before stopping on a highway constitutes actionable negligence. The recent Supreme Court of India judgment in S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2025 INSC 905) provides crucial guidance on this matter.
This article delves into the law surrounding the duty to signal before stopping, the concept of contributory negligence, applicable rules under the Motor Vehicles Act and road regulations, and the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling.
Factual Background of the Case
On 7 January 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a pillion rider. A car ahead, driven by Respondent No. 2, suddenly applied brakes without any warning. Unable to stop in time, the appellant’s motorcycle crashed into the rear of the car. As a result, he fell on the road and was subsequently run over by a bus coming from behind. The accident caused severe injuries, leading to the amputation of his left leg.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation to the tune of ₹91,62,066, applying 20% contributory negligence on the appellant. The High Court revised this, holding the car driver 40% negligent, the bus driver 30%, and the appellant 30% liable. The Supreme Court, however, modified this apportionment.
Issues Raised
- Whether the sudden stoppage of a vehicle on a highway without giving any signal constitutes negligence?
- Whether such an act by the car driver is the proximate cause of the accident?
- What is the extent of liability shared among the drivers involved and the injured person?
- Does contributory negligence apply when the injured party failed to maintain adequate distance?
The Duty to Signal and Maintain Road Discipline
Under Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules, 1989, a driver must maintain a sufficient distance from the vehicle ahead to avoid a collision if the vehicle suddenly stops or slows down. While this imposes a duty on the rear vehicle, it does not absolve the front driver from the responsibility of signalling before stopping, especially on high-speed roads such as highways.
The Supreme Court, in this case, acknowledged this balance of responsibilities. The car driver’s justification—that he stopped because his pregnant wife felt nauseous—was deemed insufficient. As per the Court:
“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.”
Failure to do so was held to be negligent and the “root cause of the accident.”
Contributory Negligence: A Shared Burden
The doctrine of contributory negligence entails that when both parties are partly at fault, liability is shared accordingly. The Tribunal initially found the appellant 20% responsible, but the High Court increased this to 30% while also apportioning blame to the car driver (40%) and the bus driver (30%).
However, the Supreme Court revisited the facts:
- The appellant was negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance.
- He was driving without a valid license.
- But the car driver failed to issue any warning before suddenly stopping.
Taking these into account, the Court restored the appellant’s contributory negligence to 20%, holding the car driver 50% liable and the bus driver 30% liable.
This case clarifies that failure to give a signal before stopping, especially on a highway, is not just a traffic violation—it is a significant factor in apportioning civil liability.
Law of Torts and Road Accidents
Under tort law, negligence is established by:
- Duty of care: The driver has a duty to other road users.
- Breach of duty: Failing to signal is a breach of this duty.
- Causation: The injury must be a direct result of this breach.
- Damage: The claimant must suffer actual harm or loss.
In this case, all elements were present. The car driver breached his duty to alert following traffic, which directly led to the sequence of events culminating in a catastrophic injury to the appellant.
Statutory Support for Signalling Duties
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, also prescribes obligations on drivers:
- Section 19 (Driving regulations): Emphasises care and caution by drivers.
- Rule 3 (General): Every driver must take reasonable precautions.
- Rule 9 (Use of Signals): Mandates timely and appropriate signalling before changing speed or direction.
In negligence jurisprudence, these statutory duties translate into expected standards of care. Non-compliance is evidence of negligence, though not conclusive on its own.
Impact on Compensation and Insurance Claims
The apportionment of negligence directly affects motor accident compensation, as seen in the recalculated award of ₹91,39,253 (after deducting 20% for contributory negligence) to the appellant.
The decision also impacted the insurance liabilities:
- Car insurer (Respondent No. 3): 50%
- Bus insurer (Respondent No. 1): 30%
This shows that insurers will bear the burden of the insured party’s share of negligence. Hence, even if the injured person is partly responsible, insurance compensation is not entirely forfeited, but adjusted accordingly.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar stated:
“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. Both Tribunal as well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver was also negligent.”
Lessons from the Judgment
1. A Signal Is Not a Courtesy—It’s a Legal Duty
This case affirms that failing to give a signal before stopping on a highway constitutes legal negligence, especially where high-speed traffic is the norm.
2. The Rear Vehicle Is Not Always at Fault
Traditionally, rear-end collisions are presumed to be the fault of the trailing driver. However, this case confirms that the lead driver’s conduct also matters, particularly if they stop abruptly without warning.
3. Courts Consider Practical Realities
While the appellant was driving without a license (a technical illegality), the Court didn’t let that override the more proximate cause of the accident—the car driver’s sudden unannounced stop.
4. Compensation Must Reflect Realistic Earning Potential
The Court rejected the High Court’s lower assumption of notional income and held that an engineering student would reasonably have a starting income of ₹20,000/month. This forms a precedent for assessing compensation for students and young professionals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court judgment in S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. is a landmark in clarifying that a driver must not abruptly stop on highways without signalling. Such an act, without valid justification or cautionary measures, amounts to actionable negligence.
While contributory negligence remains a crucial concept, it does not shield a negligent driver who fails to uphold their duty of care. The judgment not only holds drivers to higher safety standards but also lays down clear guidelines for the fair distribution of liability and compensation in road accident cases.