Mere rear-end collision does not establish contributory negligence where a vehicle was parked unlit at night.

On 20 August 2021, Guddu Achheylal was driving tanker No. GJ-06-AZ-7272 from Mundra Port towards Jamnagar Reliance when it collided at night with trailer No. GJ-12-BW-4383, which had allegedly been parked on the road without parking lights or reflectors. Guddu sustained fatal injuries.

His heirs filed MACP No. 393 of 2021 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ₹40,00,000 against the driver, owner and insurer of the trailer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed total compensation at ₹13,76,800 but attributed 20% contributory negligence to the deceased because the tanker had collided with the trailer from behind, thereby deducting ₹2,75,360 and awarding ₹11,01,500 after rounding off.

The claimants challenged only the deduction of 20%.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased merely because the tanker collided with the stationary trailer from behind?

Whether, in the circumstances, the negligence lay entirely with the trailer driver for parking the trailer on a national highway at night without parking lights, reflectors or other warning measures?

Whether the claimants were entitled to recovery of the deducted amount of ₹2,75,360 with interest?

The Court applied Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibit leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position and require adequate precautions when keeping a vehicle stationary in a public place.

It also relied on Regulation 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989 concerning precautions for stationary vehicles.

In Thakor Mittalben Kiranji & Ors. v. Balakarsing Jogasing Dilavsing Raysiy Sardar & Ors., the Coordinate Bench held that the driver of a stationary vehicle must explain the precautions taken; failure to enter the witness-box may justify an adverse inference, particularly where the vehicle was parked on a highway at night without warning signals.

The Court further relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalu Ram, 2026 (0) INSC 653, which held that collision from behind does not by itself establish negligence of the following vehicle and that the issue must be determined in the totality of circumstances; a stationary vehicle occupying a road at night without adequate warning creates an evident hazard.

The record showed that the accident occurred at approximately 10:30 p.m. on a national highway and that the trailer was stationary on the road without parking lights or reflectors.

The panchnama recorded braking marks extending eight to ten feet, but this fact alone did not establish contributory negligence by the deceased.

The FIR and charge-sheet were filed against the trailer driver, while the trailer driver neither entered the witness-box nor explained why the trailer had been left on the highway without adequate warning measures.

Applying Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Regulation 15, and the principles in Thakor Mittalben and Kalu Ram, the Court held that the hazardous positioning of the trailer was the proximate cause of the accident.

The Tribunal’s attribution of 20% negligence to the deceased was based only on conjecture and on the fact of rear-end collision, which was legally insufficient.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s finding attributing 20% contributory negligence to Guddu Achheylal.

The claimants were held entitled to an additional ₹2,75,360, being the amount deducted from the assessed compensation of ₹13,76,800, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Opponent No. 2—the insurance company—was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire compensation to the claimants following due verification.