Following vehicle liable for collision if failure to maintain safe distance prevents avoiding sudden stops.

On May 19, 2013, a collision occurred between a trailer (insured by the Appellant) and a truck (insured by the Respondent).

The trailer was moving in front of the truck. When the trailer applied brakes, the truck collided with its rear, causing grievous injuries to the truck’s cleaner.

The Tribunal found the truck driver negligent based on the cleaner’s testimony that the truck maintained a gap of only 20 feet while traveling at 30-40 km/h.

The High Court reversed this, placing liability on the trailer’s insurer, citing the sudden braking by the lead vehicle and a purported confession by the trailer driver in criminal proceedings.

1. Whether the driver of the trailing vehicle is primarily negligent in a rear-end collision for failing to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front.

2. Whether a conviction based on a confession in a summary criminal proceeding overrides ocular evidence regarding negligence led before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court primarily applied Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which mandates that a driver following another vehicle must maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision in the event of sudden braking.

It relied on the precedent set in Nishan Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which established that failure to maintain such distance constitutes negligent driving.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from National Insurance Company v. Chamundeswari, holding that evidence specifically led before the Tribunal carries greater weight than the contents of an FIR or criminal records.

The Court observed that the cleaner’s testimony established the truck was following at a distance of only 20 feet, whereas a safe distance at that speed would have been 40-50 feet.

Applying Regulation 23, the Court reasoned that the responsibility to maintain a safe gap rests squarely on the rear vehicle to account for sudden stops.

The Court dismissed the Respondent's reliance on the trailer driver's criminal confession, noting such confessions are often "measures employed... to bring a quietus to the proceedings" and cannot upset substantive evidence led before the Tribunal.

Since the Respondent failed to examine the drivers or produce contemporaneous records before the Tribunal, there was no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s finding of sole negligence on the truck driver.

It held that the truck driver was solely negligent for failing to maintain a mandatory safe distance under the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989.

Consequently, the liability to satisfy the award rests entirely on the Respondent (Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.) as the insurer of the truck.