Facts
On June 9, 2023, at approximately 4:30 AM, Vatan Kumar (the deceased) was driving a TATA Ace toward Dabua Mandi when he collided with a truck (offending vehicle) parked on the wrong side of the road near Ajronda Pull, Faridabad
Source reference: p. 1-2The truck was stationary without indicators or safety measures
Source reference: p. 2The deceased succumbed to injuries; subsequently, his legal heirs filed a claim petition
Source reference: p. 2The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 35,11,000/- with 7.5% interest, finding the truck driver solely negligent based on the FIR and charge-sheet
Source reference: p. 2-4The insurance company appealed, alleging contributory negligence by the deceased and lack of a valid driving license
Source reference: p. 5Issues
Whether the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver or if contributory negligence should be attributed to the deceased for a rear-end collision
Source reference: p. 2, para 4; p. 5, para 14Whether the deceased held a valid driving license to operate the vehicle in question
Source reference: p. 5, para 14; p. 23, para 46Law Applied
The Court applied Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prohibits abandoning vehicles in positions causing danger or obstruction to other users
Source reference: p. 9, para 29It relied on Rules 105 and 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, mandating rear parking lights visible from 155 meters for stationary vehicles
Source reference: p. 13Regarding driving licenses, the court applied the precedent from Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its affirmation in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. v. Rambha Devi, establishing that a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license holder is authorized to drive a transport vehicle of the same class (under 7500kg) without additional endorsement
Source reference: p. 23-25The court also noted the shift from the "last opportunity rule" to the principle of "apportionment of liability" for contributory negligence
Source reference: p. 21-22Reasoning
The Court rejected the plea of contributory negligence, noting that while rear-end collisions often imply negligence by the following driver, the rule changes when a vehicle is abandoned on a dark road without warnings
Source reference: p. 8, para 21Citing Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, the Court observed that at 4:30 AM (pre-dawn), visibility was poor, and the deceased could not have anticipated a truck parked on the wrong side of the road without reflectors
Source reference: p. 10, 22The Appellant failed to produce the driver or any witness to prove safety measures were taken, leading the Court to draw an adverse inference
Source reference: p. 18, para 33Furthermore, the Court dismissed the licensing objection, clarifying that since the TATA Ace fell within the LMV weight category, the deceased’s license was valid per the Mukund Dewangan doctrine
Source reference: p. 24, para 49Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the MACT award
The Court held that the truck driver was solely responsible for the accident due to the dangerous and illegal parking of the vehicle
Source reference: p. 22, para 43It further held that the deceased possessed a valid license under the law
Source reference: p. 26The Appellant was directed to deposit the compensation before the MACT for release to the claimants
Source reference: p. 26, para 52Original Court PDF
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lakshmi Kumari & Ors. [MAC.APP. 822/2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in