The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a motorcyclist cannot be blamed solely for colliding with a truck parked on a road at night, placing full responsibility on the truck driver who failed to use parking lights, indicators, or warning signals. The judgment came in an appeal by the victim's family against a 2011 award by the Ropar Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had attributed 50 percent contributory negligence to the motorcyclist.
Court Overturns Tribunal's Finding
Justice Sudeepti Sharma, allowing the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence. The court observed that the Tribunal's conclusion was wholly unsustainable and contrary to the evidence. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver who parked the vehicle on the road during night hours without any indication or warning signals.
“A careful perusal of the award reveals that the conclusion regarding contributory negligence is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law and contrary to the evidence available on record. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in its proper perspective and has erroneously attributed 50 per cent contributory negligence to the deceased,” Justice Sharma held.
No Evidence of Rash Driving
The court noted that the Tribunal presumed the victim was riding at high speed simply because the motorcycle rammed into the stationary truck. However, there was no cogent evidence to establish excessive speed or rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. The Bench asserted that the Tribunal's reasoning proceeded on conjectures and surmises, not on legally admissible evidence.
Primary Negligence on Truck Driver
Examining the record, Justice Sharma observed that the offending truck was parked on the road at night without parking lights, indicators, or warning signals. This established that primary negligence rested with the truck driver, who created a hazardous obstruction in violation of statutory safety requirements.
“Once this fact stood established, the primary negligence clearly rested upon the driver of the offending truck, who created a hazardous obstruction on the roadway in violation of statutory safety requirements,” the court held.
Burden of Proof Not Discharged
The court also found fault with the Tribunal for drawing an adverse inference against the victim despite the truck driver not entering the witness box to prove that the vehicle was parked with proper lights or indicators. The burden to establish compliance with safety norms was on the driver and owner, which remained undischarged.
“The burden to establish compliance with statutory safety norms was upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, which burden remained completely undischarged,” the court observed.
No Plea of Contributory Negligence
Justice Sharma noted that the insurance company did not raise a specific plea of contributory negligence, and the Tribunal framed no issue on that aspect. In the absence of pleadings, issue, and evidence, the plea of contributory negligence could not be legally entertained.
“In absence of pleadings, issue and evidence, the plea of contributory negligence could not have been legally entertained by the Tribunal,” the court held, adding that the finding travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties.
Enhanced Compensation Awarded
Setting aside the finding of contributory negligence, the court recalculated compensation, granting future prospects and amounts under conventional heads as per Supreme Court principles. The total compensation was worked out at Rs 31.60 lakh. After accounting for Rs 7,39,292 already awarded, the court granted an enhanced compensation of Rs 24.20 lakh to the claimants.
The enhanced amount will carry interest at nine percent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within two months.
