Biker Can't Be Blamed For Hitting Truck Parked Half On Highway Without Warning Signals At Night: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court overturned the finding of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the driver of a two-wheeler who had met with an accident with a stationary truck at night time parked without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction. In doing so the court held that the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and also enhanced...
The Gujarat High Court overturned the finding of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the driver of a two-wheeler who had met with an accident with a stationary truck at night time parked without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction.
In doing so the court held that the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and also enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5 Lakh to over Rs. 9 Lakh.
Justice Mool Chand Tyagi in his order noted:
"Thus, the evidence on record clearly indicates that at the time of the accident, the truck was parked in such a manner that half portion thereof was on the road and the remaining half portion was off the roadside, without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction being placed so as to caution approaching vehicles and avoid the accident. The accident took place at about 7:30 p.m. Therefore, in the absence of any indicator or warning signal, it would have been difficult for the deceased to notice the truck parked on the road. The manner in which the truck was parked was in gross violation of the provisions contained in Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It is also evident from the record that the Insurance Company did not examine the driver of the truck in order to rebut the version put forward by the claimants-appellants. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the driver of the truck was solely negligent in causing the accident, as he had parked the truck on the highway during night hours without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction to caution approaching vehicles. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the deceased is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be reversed. Accordingly, it is held that the driver of the offending truck was wholly negligent for causing the accident".
The court was hearing an appeal by the deceased's wife challenging order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.5,96,020 along interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation.
The claimant's husband Govindbhai Patel was driving his two-wheeler from Unjha towards Mahervada, when due to the headlight of vehicles coming from the opposite direction, he dashed against the rear side of Truck which was stationed on the road without any signal, reflector or parking lights.
As a result of the accident, he sustained grievous head injuries and during the course of treatment, succumbed to the injuries.
The claimant's advocate submitted that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the truck, as the said truck was parked on the road without any indicator or obstruction to warn oncoming vehicles in gross violation of Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
However, the Tribunal attributed negligence to the extent of 30% to the deceased himself. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the offending truck was solely negligent for causing the accident.
It was submitted that the FIR came to be lodged against the driver of the truck and, thereafter, charge-sheet also came to be filed against him. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have concluded that the driver of the truck alone was responsible for the accident.
The Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the deceased himself dashed from the behind with the stationary truck. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held the deceased himself contributory negligent.
The court thus partly allowed the appeal, overturned the finding of contributory negligence by deceased and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,96,020 to Rs.9,25,944.
Case title: PATEL JASHIBEN GOVINDBHAI WIFE OF DECD. & ORS. v/s SHAITAN SINGH & ANR
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1902 of 2022