Stationary vehicle parked on highway at night without indicators creates sole liability for resulting collision.

On March 22, 2017, the deceased, Govindbhai Patel, was riding his scooter with a pillion rider when he collided with the rear of a truck stationed on the road without reflectors or parking lights.

The claimants filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan, in M.A.C.P. No. 114 of 2017, partly allowed the claim but attributed 30% contributory negligence to the deceased for hitting a stationary vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,96,020/-.

The claimants appealed for full liability and enhancement of quantum.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence to the deceased rather than holding the driver of the stationary truck solely liable.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses, and Consortium) required enhancement as per established precedents.

Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prohibit parking vehicles on a road in a manner that causes danger or obstruction.

The principle regarding the liability of stationary vehicles as established in Archit Saini & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 365.

Standards for conventional heads and future prospects set in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The principle of parental/filial consortium from Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130.

The eye-witness testimony and documentary evidence (FIR/Panchnama) established that the truck was parked partially on the road without indicators or warning signals during night hours.

In the absence of such warnings, the deceased could not have reasonably avoided the collision, making the truck driver's violation of Sections 122 and 126 the sole cause of the accident.

The Insurance Company failed to examine the truck driver to rebut the evidence of negligence.

The Tribunal’s award under conventional heads was deficient; following Pranay Sethi, the court applied a 10% incremental increase to funeral expenses and loss of estate.

Following Magma General, the court expanded the loss of consortium to include all three claimants (widow and two children) at Rs. 40,000 each (plus adjustments), rather than a single lump sum.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 5,96,020/- to Rs. 9,25,944/-, resulting in an additional award of Rs. 3,29,924/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.