The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support claims of contributory negligence and drew adverse inference due to the failure of the truck driver to provide an explanation.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Ranjan, J. (Oral) - These appeals are directed against the judgment and Award dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana in MACT case No.104 of 2016 and MACT case no.30 of 2916 both decided on 30.08.2018 by which the compensation has been granted to the claimants who are mother and son of the deceased-Simranjit Singh who has died in a motor vehicular accident (in FAO no.8227 of 2018) and Anoop Singh (in FAO no.8223 of 2018) who received injuries.1. The case of the claimants is that the offending truck bearing registration no. HR-58-C-0280 was moving in the middle of the road at a high speed and the driver of the truck suddenly applied brakes so strongly in the middle of the road that it hardly left any chance to the vehicles coming behind him to stop in time to avoid collision. As a result TATA magic cab being driven by deceased Simranjit Singh collided behind the truck, which was moving ahead of it and claimant/Anoop Singh received multiple and grievous injuries and Simranjit Singh died of the fatal injuries.

2. It has been held by the Tribunal that there is no evidence of contributory negligence in this case as the entire evidence makes out a case of negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1 (before the Tribunal), i.e. the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal has taken notice that respondent no.l, who was the driver of the offending truck, was the sole and best person to explain for what reason he had applied brakes in the middle of the road suddenly or whether it was suddenly and strongly applied or not. The justification should have come from him but he failed to step into the witness box to do so, therefore, in view of the specific claim of the claimants in both the claim petitions that he strongly applied brakes in the middle of the road while moving in a high speed, the same has resulted in collision from behind, adverse inference has to be drawn against the driver of the vehicle and as such the Tribunal has held that the negligence in driving the offending vehicle stands proved.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company hassubmitted before this Court that in fact the vehicle being driven by the deceased was not keeping safe distance and that has resulted in collision when the brakes were applied and, thus, it has to be presumed that the negligence was on the part of the deceased-Simranjit Singh himself who was driving the TATA magic cab vehicle.

In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in "Nishan Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others" 2018(2) RCR (Civil) 891 , in which the Apex Court has held that sufficient distance though has not been defined in the regulation or elsewhere, the thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gab in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver sufficient time to respond. The distance of 10-15 feet between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the maruti car must take the blame.

However, in that case the Tribunal had noted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the driver of the truck suddenly applied his brakes in the middle of the road. Further, the finding of the issue no.l recorded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case was that there was no evidence regarding the exact place of occurrence and having taken survey. Therefore, the issue under consideration was answered against the appellants (claimants) that the said subject truck was not driven rashly and negligently by the truck driver nor had he brought the truck in the center of the road at right side or applied sudden brake as being the causeof the accident. Being concurrent finding of the fact and a possible view, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that it does not need interference. However, in the present case, the case of