### Admission of Bus Hitting Stationed Vehicle Negates Contributory Negligence Claim Against Stationary Vehicle Driver

On August 9, 2019, the deceased and others hired a goods rickshaw to purchase vegetables.

The vehicle ran out of fuel and was parked on the left side of the road while the driver went to fetch fuel.

An S.T. Bus, owned by the appellant, struck the rear of the stationary rickshaw at high speed, killing one person and injuring others.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli, in its judgment dated February 13, 2024, held the S.T. Bus driver 100% negligent.

The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation appealed, contending that the rickshaw was on the wrong side of the road and that the Tribunal failed to attribute contributory negligence to the rickshaw driver.

Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 100% sole negligence to the driver of the S.T. Bus and failing to find contributory negligence on the part of the rickshaw driver

The court applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" to establish negligence in motor accident claims, noting that mere allegations of contributory negligence are insufficient without cogent evidence.

It relied on *Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C.* (AIR 2009 SC 2819) and *Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand* (2011 11 SCC 635) regarding the appreciation of evidence in such claims.

Furthermore, it cited *Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.* (2025 INSC 394) to affirm that negligence must be established by evidence and cannot be based on conjectures or assumptions.

The High Court found that the appellant failed to provide reliable evidence to support the claim of contributory negligence.

While the S.T. Bus driver initially claimed the rickshaw was moving on the wrong side, he admitted during cross-examination that the rickshaw was stationary and the bus hit it from behind.

This admission corroborated the testimony of the rickshaw driver (an eye-witness) and the fact that a charge-sheet was filed solely against the bus driver.

The court noted that the S.T. Corporation did not cross-examine the rickshaw driver to challenge his version of events.

Consequently, the court determined that the high degree of care expected of a passenger bus driver was not met, and the appellant's arguments were based on mere conjecture rather than proven facts.

The court affirmed the 100% liability of the S.T. Bus driver, noting the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove contributory negligence.

The appeals were dismissed, the compensation award was upheld, and any deposited amounts were ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.