Back
: No for Parked Vehicle Hit From Behind
Parked Tanker Not at Fault: Dismisses Union’s Claim
The has ruled that no or can be attributed to a parked vehicle when it is hit from behind, particularly if the driver of the moving vehicle had sufficient time to avoid the collision. Justice Manish Choudhury dismissed an appeal by the , which sought ₹62,100 in compensation for damage to a defence vehicle that rear-ended a parked oil tanker.
The Accident: A Rear-End Collision on NH-37
The case arose from an accident on , near the Main Gate of , on National Highway No. 37. A Swaraj Mazda (the defence vehicle) belonging to the collided with a parked oil tanker (bearing registration WB-73/0715). According to the Union’s claim, the tanker was parked on the left side of the highway without back parking lights, and the defence vehicle hit it while giving way to an oncoming heavy vehicle.
The collision resulted in the death of one Air Force personnel, Balakrishnan Dupatne, and injuries to two others. The driver of the defence vehicle was subsequently for offences under .
The Tribunal’s Findings and the Appeal
The Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh, acting as the , dismissed the Union’s claim application under . The Tribunal held that lay entirely with the driver of the defence vehicle, noting that the tanker was parked on the extreme left side of the road and that the driver had been . The Tribunal also observed that the claimant had suppressed the fact of a death in the accident.
Aggrieved, the appealed under .
Arguments: Who Was Negligent?
Before the High Court, the Union argued that the driver of the defence vehicle had exercised due care. It contended that the tanker was parked without back parking lights, and the accident occurred when the driver swerved to avoid a speeding vehicle with high beam lights coming from the opposite direction. The Union relied on the ’s decision in Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) to argue that the parked vehicle was negligent.
In response, the insurer of the oil tanker, , submitted that the evidence clearly showed the accident was caused solely by the of the defence vehicle’s driver.
Court’s Analysis: Driver Had Time to Avoid
Justice Choudhury scrutinised the testimony of the defence vehicle’s driver (P.W.1), the only eyewitness, alongside the Sketch Plan and photographs on record. The court found contradictions: the driver claimed he swerved to the right to avoid the oncoming vehicle, but the photographs showed the tanker was parked on the left, and the defence vehicle had hit its right rear corner. The Sketch Plan indicated the tanker was on the opposite side of the road from the Air Force Station’s Main Gate, further undermining the driver’s version.
The court noted that the driver had admitted to seeing the oncoming vehicle from a distance of 150 metres and had time to slow down and apply brakes. “Even if testimony of the driver of the defence vehicle is accepted to be true then he could have exercised while turning 90° towards his left, at a slow speed after applying brakes, to avoid any accident,” the judgment observed.
The High Court also highlighted that the Union had remained silent about the death of an Air Force personnel and the injuries to two others while pursuing a claim for vehicle damage. This , the court noted, supported an against the claimant.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made several pivotal observations:
“On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record in its entirety, it is apparent that the version of the driver [P.W.1] is belied by the facts which had emerged from the other evidence on record.”
“This Court does not find any on the part of the oil tanker, much less , which was hit from behind on the right side by the defence vehicle driven by P.W.1, whose testimony does not inspire any confidence to accept it as a truthful one.”
The court distinguished the Archit Saini case, noting that in that instance, the gas tanker was parked in the middle of a busy road, whereas here the oil tanker was parked on the extreme left side of the highway.
The Verdict: No
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that the oil tanker bore no liability for the accident. The driver of the defence vehicle had sufficient time and opportunity to avoid the collision, and his was evident from the charge-sheet and the documentary evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that a vehicle parked lawfully on the side of the road is not automatically at fault when struck from behind, especially if the striking driver had ample time to react.
