New Delhi, July 31, 2025: In a landmark observation on road safety, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that sudden and unannounced braking on highways amounts to negligence, especially when it endangers other road users. The ruling came in a tragic case involving a young engineering student who lost his leg in a road accident after a car ahead of him applied abrupt brakes without warning.
The judgment, delivered on July 29, 2025, by a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, reinstated a higher compensation amount for S Mohammed Hakkim, a Coimbatore-based student, while rebuking irresponsible driving practices on Indian highways.
The Case: A Life Altered in Seconds
Back in 2017, 20-year-old Hakkim, then in his third year of engineering college, was riding a motorcycle on a highway near Coimbatore when disaster struck. The car in front of him braked suddenly without signaling, causing his bike to crash into its rear. The collision threw him onto the road, where a bus following behind ran over his left leg, resulting in an amputation from the waist down.
What followed was a years-long legal battle through various judicial forums to determine compensation and liability.
Initial Compensation and Legal Journey
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Hakkim ₹91.62 lakh as compensation but deducted 20% citing contributory negligence, primarily because he did not hold a valid driving license. The MACT held the bus insurer solely responsible, letting the car driver off the hook.
Both the bus insurer and Hakkim appealed to the Madras High Court, which revised the liability as follows:
- 40% to the car driver
- 30% to the bus driver
- 30% to Hakkim
This redistribution led to a further reduction in compensation to ₹58.53 lakh.
Supreme Court’s Intervention: Braking Without Warning Is Negligence
Unhappy with the decision, Hakkim approached the Supreme Court, which took a more nuanced view. While the apex court upheld Hakkim’s partial negligence due to lack of license and not maintaining sufficient distance, it firmly pointed to the car driver’s sudden braking as the root cause of the accident.
The car driver defended his action, claiming he stopped abruptly because his pregnant wife felt nauseous. The court, however, was unimpressed.
“On a highway, high-speed traffic is expected. If a driver intends to stop, there is a responsibility to give warning or signal to vehicles behind,” the court stated.
“Stopping in the middle of a highway due to nausea, without any signal, is not a reasonable explanation under any traffic standard,” the bench observed.
Revised Compensation: A Step Towards Justice
Taking a more balanced approach, the Supreme Court redistributed the liability as:
- 50% on the car driver
- 30% on the bus driver
- 20% contributory negligence on Hakkim
It also reinstated the compensation to ₹91.3 lakh, directing the insurers of both the car and the bus to pay the amount accordingly.
Road Safety Concerns: SC’s Broader Message
The court’s ruling is more than just a compensation judgment — it’s a clear warning about highway driving behavior. While sudden braking may sometimes be necessary, the lack of signaling or warning can turn a momentary action into a life-altering tragedy for others.
The bench acknowledged India’s complicated traffic realities, where even major highways are often plagued with potholes, unexpected obstructions, and vehicles moving against the flow. Yet, it maintained that driver responsibility remains paramount.
“Such acts, though momentary, can have irreversible consequences. Every driver on the highway carries the responsibility to think not only for themselves but also for those sharing the road,” the court said.
A Ruling That Echoes Beyond the Courtroom
This verdict has resonated widely among road safety advocates and legal experts, who see it as a defining moment in emphasizing accountability on Indian roads.
As for Hakkim, the judgment offers not just financial relief, but also acknowledgment of the unfair suffering he endured. While no compensation can restore what was lost, the ruling serves as a reminder to all drivers: the road is shared, and recklessness comes at a cost — sometimes, one paid by someone else entirely.
