A rear-end collision or FIR alone cannot establish a deceased motorist’s sole negligence.

On 6 December 2021, Ranjitbhai Sureshbhai Parmar was riding his motorcycle on Sarsa–Bhalej Road when it collided with a truck parked on the road. He died at the scene.

His legal heirs filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, dismissed the claim petition, attributing the accident entirely to the deceased, relying on the panchnama, the FIR and the abated summary.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Act.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding the deceased solely negligent on the evidence before it, including the panchnama, FIR and abated summary

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim petition required appellate interference and, if so, what relief should follow

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award. Sections 122 and 126 of the Act, read with Rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, are relevant to the precautions required when a vehicle is stopped or parked on a road.

Negligence and contributory negligence must be assessed from the evidence and surrounding circumstances; a rear-end collision, by itself, does not establish that the following vehicle’s driver was solely negligent. Contributory negligence requires conduct by the claimant that materially contributed to the damage and amounted to a failure to take reasonable care (*Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak*, (2002) 6 SCC 455, paras. 8–10).

The Court also referred to *Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram*, 2026 INSC 653, on assessing the circumstances of a stationary truck and the absence of evidence from its driver, and to *Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer*, (2003) 8 SCC 731, on negligence and contributory negligence.

The Tribunal inferred sole negligence from the collision, the panchnama, the FIR and the abated summary, despite the complainant not being an eyewitness. The High Court held that an FIR against the deceased or an abated summary could not, without more, establish his sole negligence, and that a collision from behind was not conclusive.

The truck driver had not entered the witness box, and the Tribunal had not properly assessed the evidence in light of the applicable negligence principles or considered the statutory provisions governing vehicles stopped on a road.

Finding the Tribunal’s approach unsustainable, the Court set aside the award but directed a fresh determination on the evidence and law, without being influenced by its observations.

The claim petition was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration; the parties were permitted to lead further evidence, if advised.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the petition within six months from 21 October 2026, without being influenced by the earlier award or the High Court’s observations. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21 October 2026, and the Registry was directed to transmit the record before that date.