Truck Parked Mid-Road At Night Shares Blame For Jeep Crash: Gujarat HC Sets 60:40 Split, Raises Passenger’s Award To ₹10.87 Lakh

On 12 August 2008, the claimant was a passenger in a Bolero Jeep that collided with a Taurus truck parked on the highway.

The claimant sustained multiple injuries resulting in permanent functional disability.

The Tribunal attributed the entire negligence to the Jeep’s driver, awarded Rs. 5,23,247 with interest at 7% per annum, and exonerated the truck’s owner and insurer.

National Insurance Company appealed, arguing that negligence should also be attributed to the truck’s driver; the claimant cross-objected, seeking enhanced compensation.

Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Regulation 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, were applied to the truck driver’s conduct in leaving a vehicle stationary on a public highway without adequate precautions.

Relying on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram, 2026 INSC 653, the Court held that a rear-end collision alone does not establish negligence by the approaching vehicle’s driver; negligence must be assessed from the totality of the circumstances, and an adverse inference may be drawn where a driver fails to testify.

Where an injured claimant’s loss results from the composite negligence of multiple drivers, the claimant may recover the entire compensation jointly and severally from any liable party.

For compensation assessment, the Court applied a multiplier of 14 for a claimant aged 42 and added 25% for future prospects.

The Tribunal’s finding was undermined by its reference to a Matador that was not involved in the accident.

The claimant’s evidence was that the Jeep was travelling at excessive speed and that the truck was parked on the road without warning signals; neither driver testified, and the insurers did not effectively secure their attendance.

Considering the circumstances and the truck’s failure to take precautions, the Court found the Tribunal had erred in placing all negligence on the Jeep’s driver. It apportioned negligence 60% to the Jeep’s driver and 40% to the truck’s driver, while preserving the claimant’s right to recover on a joint-and-several basis.

On the cross-objection, it found the Tribunal had assessed income too conservatively despite the ITR and recalculated compensation using the appropriate multiplier and future prospects.

Negligence was apportioned 60:40 between the Jeep and truck drivers, respectively, and total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 10,87,214—an additional Rs. 5,63,967—with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The claimant may recover the compensation jointly and severally from the opponents held liable; amounts already paid or deposited are to be adjusted.