Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.166 and 140 – Fatal accident – Victim-deceased was travelling along with her husband-appellant no.1 in the car driven by PW-2 – The car dashed against the truck which was running ahead of it – Resulting in death of victim-deceased – Claim petition – Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car and concluded that truck driver and the insurer of the truck were not liable to pay any compensation – High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal – Held: PW-2 admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and car was only 10-15 feet – He also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction – Distance of 10-15 feet between the truck and car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the car must take the blame – When car was following the truck and no fault can be attributed to the truck driver, the blame must rest on the driver of car for having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently – However, s.140 of the Act provides for liability of the owner of the vehicle (subject truck) involved in the accident – Fastening liability u/s.140 of the Act on the owner of the vehicle is regardless of the fact that the subject vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently – Therefore, appellants granted limited relief u/s.140 of the Act – Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 – regn. 23 – Road Safety – Distance of vehicles in front.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The maruti car was driven by none other than PW-2-cousin brother of appellant no.1. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and maruti car was only
10 -15 feet. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. [Para 10] [802-F-H]
1.2 The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has 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 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. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants. [Para 10] [803-B-C]
2. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the driver of the truck suddenly applied his brake in the middle of the road. Further, the finding by the Tribunal is that there was no evidence regarding exact place of occurrence of accident and having taken survey. Therefore, it was answered against the appellants (claimants), namely, that the subject truck was not driven rashly and negligently by the truck driver nor had he brought the truck in the centre of the road at right side or applied sudden brake as being the cause of the accident. Being a concurrent finding of fact and a possible view, needs no interference. [Para 11] [803-C-E]
3. The question of contributory negligence would arise when both parties are involved in the accident due to rash and negligent driving. In a case such as the present one, when the maruti car was following the truck and no fault can be attributed to the truck driver, the blame must rest on the driver of the maruti car for THR. REGIONAL MANAGER
having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. The High Court has justly taken note of the fact that the driver and owner of the maruti car, as well as insurer of that vehicle, had not been impleaded as parties to the claim petition. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that in all probability, the driver and owner of the maruti car were not made party being close relatives of the appellants. In such a situation, the issue of contributory negligence cannot be taken forward. [Para 12] [803-F-H]
4. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for liability of the owner of the vehicle (subject truck) involved in the accident. It is a well settled position that fastening liability under Section 140 of the Act on the owner of the vehicle is regardless of the fact that the subject vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently. The appellants are granted limited relief under Section 140 of the Act. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are made jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the appellants towards compensation under Section 140 of the Act, on account of the death of wife of appellant No.1 in the accident, along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. [Paras 13 and 15] [804-A-B, D-E]
Indra Devi and Others v. Bagada Ram and Another (2010) 13 SCC 249 : [2010] 10 SCR 347 ; Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and Another v. C.S.
Gurushanthappa and Another (2010) 8 SCC 620 :
[2010] 10 SCR 362 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.