A vehicle left unlit in the road was solely negligent for the resulting nighttime collision.

The claimants sought compensation following the death of a pillion rider when the motorcycle on which he was travelling collided at night with a tractor parked on the road.

The Tribunal found the tractor driver and owner fully negligent and awarded ₹18,43,220 with 9% annual interest.

The insurer appealed, contending that the motorcycle driver was also contributorily negligent and that the delayed FIR cast doubt on the accident.

The High Court considered the tractor’s position and lack of reflectors or lights, as well as the FIR’s delay and circumstances.

Whether the delayed filing of the FIR justified doubting the occurrence of the accident or the involvement of the tractor.

Whether the motorcycle driver was contributorily negligent, or whether the tractor driver’s conduct amounted to the sole negligence causing the accident.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim is decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities; strict proof beyond reasonable doubt of the precise manner of the accident is not required (Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, as quoted at para. 10, pp. 4–5).

Section 122 prohibits leaving a vehicle in a position or condition likely to cause danger or obstruction; Section 126 and Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989 require precautions when a vehicle is left stationary or parked in a public place; and Rules 104 and 105 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 address reflectors and lamps.

Contributory negligence requires an act or omission that materially contributed to the accident or damage (K. Anusha v. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., quoted at para. 11, pp. 7–8).

A delayed FIR, by itself, is not a ground to reject a motor-accident claim (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu, para. 9, p. 4).

The Court rejected the challenge based on the FIR delay, noting that the FIR recorded the motorcycle driver as both complainant and accused, and that delay alone did not disprove the accident.

On negligence, the tractor had been left on the road at night without visible rear reflectors, parking lights, signals, or other warning; its driver did not testify to explain the circumstances or precautions taken.

Applying the statutory safety requirements and the cited authorities, the Court held that the tractor’s dangerous placement caused the accident and that the record did not establish contributory negligence by the motorcycle driver.

It directed the Tribunal to disburse the awarded amount, including any amount held in fixed deposit, with accrued interest to the claimants after verification and deduction of any unpaid court fees.