No negligence attaches to a tanker parked on the extreme left when struck from behind.

The Union of India filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹62,100 as compensation for damage to its Swaraj Mazda defence vehicle in a road accident on 12.06.1998 near the Main Gate of Air Force Station, Chabua, on National Highway No. 37.

The vehicle collided from behind with an oil tanker bearing registration no. WB-73/0715, owned by respondent nos. 1 and 2, driven by respondent no. 3, and insured by respondent no. 4.

The claimant alleged that the oil tanker had been parked on the left side of the highway without rear parking lights, and that the defence vehicle collided with it while attempting to avoid an oncoming heavy vehicle whose headlights were on full beam.

The claimant examined the defence vehicle’s driver and two other Air Force personnel and produced an Accident Information Report, traffic accident report, sketch plan, photographs, and technical inspection report.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the defence vehicle’s driver.

It noted that the driver had been charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 304A, 338 and 427 of the IPC, and that the claimant had suppressed the fact that one occupant died and two others were injured in the accident.

The present appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against that dismissal.

Whether the driver of the oil tanker was negligent, or contributorily negligent, for parking the tanker on the left side of the highway without rear parking lights or warning signals?

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claimant’s application on the ground that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the defence vehicle’s driver?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 permits a claim for compensation arising from an accident involving use of a motor vehicle, while Section 173 provides the statutory appellate remedy against an award or order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that compensation for motor-vehicle damage requires proof of negligence attributable to the opposite vehicle; where the claimant’s own driver caused the collision, liability cannot be imposed on the owner or insurer of the vehicle that was struck.

The Court considered the evidentiary significance of the police report and charge-sheet under Sections 279, 304A, 338 and 427 IPC, while assessing negligence.

It also considered Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., where negligence was attributed to a tanker parked in the middle of a busy road without indicators or parking lights, but distinguished that decision because the tanker in the present case was parked on the extreme left side of the highway.

The Court found that the testimony of the defence vehicle’s driver was inconsistent with the documentary evidence.

The sketch plan showed that the tanker was parked approximately 100 metres from the Air Force Station’s Main Gate, on the left side of the highway, rather than at the location described by the driver.

The photographs showed that the defence vehicle struck the tanker’s right rear corner while the tanker was parked on the extreme left side of the road.

The driver’s account that he swerved to avoid an approaching vehicle was therefore not consistent with the position and damage depicted in the sketch plan and photographs.

The Court further relied on the unchallenged fact that the defence vehicle’s driver had been charge-sheeted after investigation into the accident, in which one occupant died and two others were injured.

The claimant’s failure to disclose these material facts justified the Tribunal’s adverse inference against its version of events.

Even assuming that the oncoming vehicle had its headlights on full beam, the defence vehicle’s driver had sufficient opportunity to slow down, exercise due care, and negotiate the turn without colliding with a tanker parked on the left side of the highway.

Accordingly, the Court held that Archit Saini did not assist the appellant because the factual circumstances there involved a tanker parked in the middle of a busy road, unlike the present case.

The collision was attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the defence vehicle’s driver, whose testimony did not inspire confidence and was contradicted by the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim was found to be adequately supported by the evidence.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no compensation awarded against the respondents.