IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging negligence, and failure to maintain sufficient distance does not automatically imply liability without evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri A N Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prithvi Raj B N, learned counsel who is representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Smt Bharathi who is representing Sri Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel on record for respondent No 4.

2. Assailing and disputing the findings given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur through orders in MVC No.7/2020 dated 11.02.2021 by which liability is fastened upon the appellant herein to pay compensation to the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 herein, present appeal is preferred. The appellant is the Insurance Company.

3. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.40,78,310/- as compensation in favour of the claimants fastening the liability upon the owner and insurance company of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-09-D-1497 and directed them to pay the amount awarded.

4. The matrix of the case as could be perceived from the material available on record is that on 15.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased – Pruthviraj.M (hereinafter referred to as deceased for brevity) was proceeding on bike bearing Reg. No. KA- 54-J-8498 from Hunsur towards Mysuru, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-09-D-1497, was proceeding ahead of him. The driver of the said lorry was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the lorry applied sudden brake without any signal and therefore the back side body of the lorry hit the motor bike of the deceased. Due to which the deceased fell down with his bike and sustained head injury and died on the spot.

5. Advancing his stand that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the negligence is not on the part of the driver of the lorry, learned counsel for the appellant Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy submits that the accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry but due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike by the deceased. Learned counsel submits that it is incumbent on the part of drivers of the motor vehicles to keep sufficient distance between the vehicle he is driving and the vehicle ahead of him. But in the case on hand, the deceased failed to maintain such distance and thereby deceased himself negligently hit the bike to lorry and thereby the accident occurred. Learned counsel also states that as the deceased was negligent, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability against the insurance company. Learned counsel took support of his submission by the rules and the regulations framed by the Central Government. He relies upon Rule 23 of the Rules of The Road Regulations, 1989 published vide Notification S.O. 439 (E), dated 12.06.1989. Rule 23 of the said Rules reads as under :

“Distance from vehicles in front – The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.”

6. Also contending that in the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the rider of the vehicle who did not maintain sufficient distance from the vehicle ahead is to be found fault with, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Nishan Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2018 ACJ 1466, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with a case where a Maruthi Car hit a truck which was running ahead of it, at paras 10 and 11 held as under :

“10. The expression ‘sufficient distance’ had not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10-15 ft between the truck and Maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of Maruti car must take the blame. It is must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be again