A charge-sheet against the moving driver alone does not preclude apportioning negligence to an improperly parked vehicle.

Five connected appeals arose from a common award in claims for injuries and fatalities sustained when a Mahindra Pick-Up van collided with a container lorry stopped on a National Highway.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that both the van driver’s rash driving and the lorry driver’s negligent parking contributed to the accident, and attributed 50% liability to each side.

The insurer of the container lorry appealed, challenging the finding that its insured’s driver was negligent and the resulting 50% liability.

The compensation amounts were not disputed

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the container-lorry driver’s parking contributed to the accident, notwithstanding that the FIR and charge sheet were against the van driver

2. Whether the Tribunal’s allocation of 50% liability to the container-lorry side should be disturbed

The appeals were brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeals against awards of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The Court assessed negligence from the oral and documentary evidence as a whole; registration of an FIR or filing of a charge sheet against one driver alone does not, by itself, establish that the other driver was free from negligence.

A driver who stops a vehicle on a National Highway must park it safely and provide proper warning signals; the Court treated failure to take those precautions as relevant to negligence.

No precedent was cited in the Court’s analysis of the negligence issue.

The evidence showed that the van struck the lorry from behind, and the FIR and charge sheet implicated the van driver.

However, the lorry driver admitted that the lorry had stopped on the National Highway after a tyre burst and could not be parked further to the left because of a pothole.

Although he claimed to have placed warning boards, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish that the lorry had been parked in a proper place with adequate caution signals.

It therefore held that the criminal proceedings against the van driver did not displace the evidence supporting the Tribunal’s finding of negligence on the lorry driver’s part, and found no basis to interfere with the equal apportionment of liability.

The appellant was directed to deposit the compensation awarded, less any amount already deposited, within four weeks of receiving the order; the claimants could then withdraw the amounts in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.