NISHAN SINGH & ORS. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 795 · Decided: 27-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
795
NISHAN SINGH & ORS.
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10145 of  2016)
APRIL 27, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
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
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 795
795
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
797
having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. The High Court
has justly taken note of the f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.