Sufficient distance must be maintained by following vehicles to avoid sole negligence for rear-end collisions.

On April 11, 2021, the deceased, Vinodbhai Patel, was riding a motorcycle when he was struck from behind by a Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bharuch, awarded the claimants ₹9,07,500/- with 9% interest, holding the bus driver solely negligent.

GSRTC appealed the judgment on the grounds of contributory negligence, alleging the deceased was intoxicated and attempted to overtake the bus improperly.

The claimants sought enhancement of the award despite not filing a cross-appeal.

1. Whether the driver of the GSRTC bus was solely negligent or if the deceased contributed to the accident through intoxication or improper overtaking.

2. Whether the appellate court can enhance compensation in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of income, future prospects, and the applicable multiplier.

The court applied the "Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989," specifically Regulation 23 regarding maintaining a safe distance from vehicles in front.

It relied on Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2018) to define "sufficient distance" and liability in rear-end collisions.

For quantum calculation, it followed Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) for multipliers and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) for future prospects and conventional heads.

Finally, it applied the principle of "just compensation" as upheld in Surekha v. Santosh (2021), allowing enhancement without a cross-appeal.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s claim of contributory negligence, noting that the panchnama showed rear-end damage to the motorcycle and front-side damage to the bus, indicating the bus hit the deceased from behind.

Per Nishan Singh, the following vehicle bears the burden of maintaining a safe distance. The allegation of intoxication was dismissed as the Post Mortem report showed no alcohol and the Appellant led no evidence.

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal's assessment of ₹8,000/- monthly income below the minimum wage for skilled workers (₹9,495.20/-) at the time of the accident. It corrected the multiplier from 11 to 13, as the deceased was 50 years old.

Following Surekha, the Court held that a technical lack of a cross-appeal does not bar the High Court from awarding "just compensation".

It enhanced the compensation from ₹9,07,500/- to ₹12,19,796/- and ordered an additional payment of ₹3,12,296/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. The Appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks.