An unmarked stationary vehicle attracts primary negligence, but a supported contributory-negligence apportionment may stand.

The claim arose from a collision between a motorcycle and a tractor-trolley parked on the road after a tyre puncture. The motorcycle rider died and the pillion rider was injured.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, apportioned negligence 75% to the tractor-trolley driver and 25% to the motorcycle rider. The insurer appealed, challenging that apportionment.

The Tribunal had noted that the pillion rider testified to the accident and that the tractor-trolley driver did not appear to give evidence.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assigning 25% contributory negligence to the motorcycle rider and 75% liability to the tractor-trolley driver.

2. Whether the insurer established a basis for altering the Tribunal’s apportionment of liability.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award.

The Court stated that, under Sections 122 and 126 of the Act, leaving a stationary vehicle on a public highway without adequate precautions—such as warning lights, reflective triangles, or warning markers—constitutes actionable negligence.

It also relied on Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kalu Ram, 2026 INSC 653, for the principles that a rear-end collision does not, by itself, establish negligence by the following vehicle, and that negligence must be assessed in the circumstances of the case, including whether a stationary vehicle was adequately marked.

The Tribunal had also referred to Shakurmiya Imammiya Shaikh v. Minor Surendra Singh Rup Singh.

The Court considered the motorcycle pillion rider’s evidence and the absence of testimony from the tractor-trolley driver.

It held that the insurer had produced no evidence to rebut the claimants’ case or establish contributory negligence beyond the Tribunal’s finding.

The tractor-trolley’s presence on the road without demonstrated warning precautions supported the finding of substantial negligence on its driver’s part; however, the Court found the Tribunal’s 75:25 apportionment reasonable on the evidence.

It observed that contributory negligence is not determined by a fixed formula.

The insurer was directed to deposit the awarded compensation within eight weeks if it had not already done so, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants after verification.