Sleeping beneath a stationary truck does not constitute contributory negligence when the driver fails to check before moving it.

Md. Rafik died on 11 July 2013 after being run over by the rear wheel of a container truck while sleeping beneath it in a factory casting yard.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, awarded compensation of ₹17,24,500 with interest at 9% per annum.

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the deceased had contributed to the accident by sleeping under the truck and that the offending vehicle lacked a valid permit/fitness certificate.

An eyewitness, PW2 Iktar Ali, testified that labourers commonly rested beneath stationary trucks in the yard, that the driver failed to check beneath the truck or blow the horn, and that he continued driving despite being signalled to stop.

The driver and owner did not appear despite substituted service and were proceeded against ex parte.

Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence by sleeping beneath the stationary truck, thereby reducing or defeating the compensation claim.

Whether the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the award despite the offending vehicle allegedly having no valid permit or fitness certificate, and whether it was entitled to recover the amount from the driver and owner.

The Court applied the principle that contributory negligence must be established by evidence and cannot be inferred merely because the deceased was asleep at the time of the accident; where a driver starts a vehicle without checking for persons beneath it, the primary negligence lies with the driver.

Relying on Shakuntala v. Ghanshyam Dhakad, 2008 SCC OnLine MP 110, the Court held that sleeping beneath a vehicle, in circumstances where the driver could have avoided the accident by making a check or giving a warning, does not by itself constitute contributory negligence.

On the insurer’s statutory liability, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517, and Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558, for the rule that, having regard to the beneficial object of motor accident compensation legislation, the insurer may be directed to satisfy the award even where it has a valid defence against the insured, with liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner and driver.

The Court also considered the evidentiary effect of the unrebutted testimony regarding the fake fitness certificate and the criminal charge-sheet filed against the driver/owner.

The Court accepted PW2’s categorical and unrebutted evidence that the truck had remained parked in the yard for two days, that labourers habitually used the shade beneath stationary trucks because of the scorching heat, and that the driver neither checked beneath the long-body truck nor responded to warnings before moving it.

Given the driver’s practical knowledge of the circumstances in the yard and the limited visibility beneath a long-body truck, the Court held that the accident was attributable to the driver’s failure to take reasonable precautions, not to contributory negligence by the deceased.

On the vehicle-documentation issue, the evidence of the insurer’s Assistant Manager and the Investigating Officer, together with the verification report showing that the fitness certificate was fake, remained unrebutted because the driver and owner failed to appear.

Although the insurer established a breach sufficient to justify recovery proceedings, the beneficial object of the legislation required it to first satisfy the award, particularly as the accident occurred within a factory yard rather than on a public road.

The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award but was granted the right to recover the amount from respondent nos. 6 and 7, namely, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, because of the invalid/fake fitness certificate and related breach.

The appeal was disposed of, and pending applications were rendered infructuous; any statutory deposit was to be refunded only upon deposit of the payable amount with accrued interest.