SC holds car driver not guilty of accident as truck was parked on middle of highway at night
In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the finding of the High Court that car driver could have averted crash accident with the truck parked on the Highway and he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4257 (2024) (09) abcaus.in SC
In the instant case, the appellant-claimants had challenged judgment passed by the High Court in case of claim under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) against owner of truck and Insurance company in a car accident case, upholding the contributory negligence of the driver of the car for causing the collision with truck.
A car had collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck (the offending truck) which was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights. The collision resulted into the death of the passengers of the car including four passengers and the driver at the spot. The claimant (wife of deceased) survived the accident, however, sustaining grievous injuries.
Both, the car and the offending truck were insured by Insurance Companies. The injured wife and the legal heirs of the deceased occupants of the car filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act before the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation from the owner of offending truck and the insurer of the offending truck. No relief was sought by the claimants against the owner and the insurer of the car.
The claimants alleged that since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without switching on the parking lights or indicators or without taking any other precautionary measures to warn the incoming traffic, the person in control of the said truck was fully responsible for the accident.
The Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal observed that the driver of the car had contributed to the accident because he failed to take appropriate preventive measures so as to avoid collision with the offending truck which was parked in the middle of the road. As a result, out of the total compensation granted was reduced by 50% on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the car.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and the reduction on account of contributory negligence, the appellant- claimants filed appeals under Section 173(1) of the Act before the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court applied the rule of last opportunity and held that had the driver of the car been cautious, he could have avoided the accident. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s observation with respect to contributory negligence, however, it modified and enhanced the total compensation awarded.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it had dealt with the question whether the driver’s negligence in any manner vicariously attaches to the passengers of the motor vehicle of which he was the driver, and it was held that there is no rule that the driver on the one hand and the passengers on the other hand are to be “identified” so as to fasten the latter with any liability for the former’s contributory negligence. There cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a “right of control” of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger. A passenger is not treated as a backseat driver.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the impugned judgements passed by the High Court and the Tribunal whereby the contributory negligence of the driver of the car was vicariously applied to the passengers was perverse, prima facie illegal and impermissible.
The next issue that remained to be decided was whether the Courts below were justified in fastening partial liability on the driver of the car on the basis of contributory negligence in causing the accident.
The High Court in its order observed that here are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Taking consideration the facts in totality, it may be stated that if the driver of the car was cautious, he would have avoided the accident and accordingly, the rule of last opportunity would be squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the claimants had submitted that there was fog at the time of the accident. Undisputedly, accident took place at 9.10 pm in the Month of August and there was not even a remote possibility that the road would be illuminated by moonlight at the time of the accident. The discussion of evidence by the Tribunal and the High Court made no reference to availability of streetlights at the collision site and hence, there was no doubt that at the time of the accident, the conditions on the road would have been pitch dark making it virtually impossible for the incoming vehicles to sight the stationary offending truck within a reasonable distance.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that apparently, the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the highway (as concurrently held by both the Courts below) without taking due care and caution to switch on the parking lights or to put in place any other precautionary measures to warn the vehicles traversing the highway in the dead of the night. Common sense requires that no vehicle can be left parked and unattended in the middle of the road as it would definitely be a traffic hazard posing risk to the other road users.
The Hon’ble High Court observed the various provisions of the Act as under:
| Section 121 | the driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and, on such occasions, as may be prescribed by the Central Government |
| Section 122 | no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any “public place” in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances so as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers |
| Section 126 | no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place |
| Section 127(2) | where any abandoned, unattended, wrecked, burnt or partially dismantled vehicle is creating a traffic hazard, because of its position in relation to the public place, or its physical appearance is causing the impediment to the traffic, its immediate removal from the public place by a towing service may be authorised by a police officer having jurisdiction |
| Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 prevailing on the date of the incident | Every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users. It casts a duty on the drivers of a motor vehicle stating that the vehicle shall not be parked at or near a road crossing or in a main road |
In view of the above legal provisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that there is no room for doubt that the person in control of the offending truck acted in sheer violation of law while abandoning the vehicle in the middle of the road and that too without taking precautionary measures like switching on the parking lights, reflectors or any other appropriate steps to warn the other vehicles travelling on the highway. Had the accident taken place during the daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated, then perhaps, the car driver could have been held equally responsible for the accident by applying the rule of last opportunity. But there was no illumination at the accident site either natural or artificial. Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of the applicable rules and regulations, the burden to prove that the placement of the said vehicle as such was beyond human control and that appropriate precautionary measures taken while leaving the vehicle in that position were essentially on the person in control of the offending truck. However, no evidence was led by the person having control over the said truck in this regard. Thus, the entire responsibility for the negligence leading to the accident was of the truck owner/driver.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.
The Hon’ble High Court further held that the appellant-claimants could not be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car was jointly responsible for the accident with the person in control of the offending truck and hence, their claims should be reduced on the principle of contributory negligence.
Accordingly, it was held that the person in control of the offending truck was fully responsible for the negligence leading to the accident. As a consequence, the deduction of 50% of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants on account of contributory negligence cannot be sustained. The finding recorded by the Courts below on this issue was reversed as being perverse and unsustainable. Resultantly, it was directed that there shall be no deduction from the compensation payable to the appellant-claimants who shall be entitled to the full compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to request for modification in the apportionment on the ground that the co-claimant (wife of deceased passenger) had remarried after the claim was decided and thus, she cannot claim equal share in the compensation.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Fraud & deception not trade and business and money accumulated is proceeds of crime
- ICAI extends last date to submit MEF for FY 2025-26 to 10th October, 2025
- ICAI defers Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Non-Corporate entities/LLPs
- Delhi Govt. to help persons with benchmark disabilities with high support need
- Placing Genset in steel container fitted with additional parts amounts to manufacture
