Tribunal's dismissal of claim set aside for failing to consider evidentiary silence on statutory safety precautions.

On April 22, 2003, at approximately 1:00 a.m., the deceased, Dipak Chunilal, was riding his scooter when he collided with a stationary Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus (No. GJ-18-V-7657) from behind.

The appellants alleged the bus was parked in a broken-down condition in the middle of the road without indicators, tail lights, or reflectors.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara, dismissed the claim petition (MACP No. 13 of 2004) on November 9, 2017, finding that the claimants failed to prove the driver's negligence and suggested the deceased was negligent.

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in its finding of negligence by ignoring documentary evidence such as the FIR and Panchnama.

2. Whether the dismissal of the claim petition was sustainable in light of the failure of the bus driver to take necessary safety precautions while parked on the road at night.

The court applied the principles of tortious liability and negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Specifically, the court scrutinized the "duty of care" owed by drivers of stationary vehicles on public highways, particularly at night, which requires taking "necessary precautions," "obstructions," or keeping "indicators on" to warn other commuters.

The court relied on the evidentiary value of the First Information Report (FIR) and the Spot Panchnama to determine the existence of contributory or sole negligence.

The High Court found the Tribunal’s findings to be "contrary to the oral evidence... as well as the documentary evidence".

The Court noted that the FIR, lodged by the bus driver himself, was silent regarding whether any safety precautions—such as tail lights or reflectors—were active.

Furthermore, the Spot Panchnama was drawn using a torchlight; the Court reasoned that had the bus indicators been functioning, the Panchnama would have likely been drawn using the bus's own lights.

The Court observed that neither the FIR nor the Panchnama recorded any obstructions placed by the driver/conductor to warn oncoming traffic, contradicting the conductor's oral testimony.

The matter was remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, to decide the issues of negligence and quantum afresh within six months, without being influenced by the High Court's observations.