A stationary heavy vehicle left unmarked at night constitutes negligence despite a rear-end collision.

The appellant/claimant, Smt. Anju Mohanti, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second FTC, Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 19 of 2007.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹2,90,000 with interest at 7% per annum.

The deceased, Arjun Mohanti, aged approximately 36 years, was travelling in a Maruti car at night when it collided with Truck No. HR-46/A-7486 at about 10:30 p.m.

The claimant alleged that the truck had been left stationary on the road without parking lights, indicators, reflectors, or warning signs, causing the collision and the deceased’s death.

The Insurance Company contended that the truck had earlier met with an accident and had thereafter been parked on the extreme left side of the road.

It alleged that the accident resulted solely from the rash and negligent driving of the car and, alternatively, that the deceased was contributorily negligent.

The Tribunal rejected the plea of negligence or contributory negligence against the deceased and held the truck driver negligent for leaving the vehicle on the road without adequate precautions.

The claimant appealed on the ground that future prospects and adequate amounts under the conventional heads had not been awarded.

A heavy vehicle stationed on a road, particularly at night, must be adequately illuminated and marked, and its driver must take reasonable precautions for the safety of other road users; the mere fact that a vehicle is struck from behind does not, by itself, establish negligence of the approaching vehicle.

For computation of compensation, the Court applied the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as followed by the Division Bench in Jagdish Chandra Pathak v. Kundan Singh Pangty, regarding addition of future prospects and standardized conventional amounts.

For a deceased aged 36 years, 40% was added towards future prospects; one-half was deducted towards personal and living expenses; and the multiplier of 15 was applied.

The Court upheld the finding of negligence because the truck admittedly remained stationary on the road after an earlier accident, and the eyewitness’s unrebutted testimony established that it lacked back lights, indicators, and reflectors.

Since the accident occurred at approximately 10:30 p.m., the absence of warning signals made the truck an evident hazard to approaching vehicles.

The Insurance Company produced no cogent evidence showing that adequate warning measures had been adopted.

Accordingly, the collision from behind did not, in the circumstances, establish negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

On quantum, the Court treated the deceased’s notional monthly income as ₹3,000 and added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹4,200.

After deducting one-half for personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency was calculated at ₹25,200.

Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency came to ₹3,78,000.

The Court further awarded ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, ₹15,000 for loss of estate, and ₹40,000 for loss of consortium, making the total compensation ₹4,48,000.

The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation was enhanced from ₹2,90,000 to ₹4,48,000.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until actual payment.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of production of the certified judgment, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amount in accordance with law.