Mere Plea That Offending Vehicle Was Stationary Does Not Absolve Owner From Liability If Improper Parking Caused Accident: Calcutta High Court
The Court observed that where a vehicle is parked in an improper or unauthorised place, and such negligent parking contributes to the accident, liability would still arise.
The Calcutta High Court has held that a mere plea that a vehicle was stationary at the time of an accident does not absolve its owner from liability where the vehicle was parked in an improper place, causing the accident.
The appeals arose out of compensation awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal arising out of a road accident that claimed the lives of a husband, wife and their daughter and left their younger daughter injured.
Challenging the awards, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. contended that the offending vehicle was stationary at the time of the accident and therefore its owner and insurer could not be saddled with liability.
While dismissing appeals filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. challenging compensation awarded in claims Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed: “With regard to the submission regarding ex-oneration of the vehicle being WB-33/5717 as the said vehicle was stationary it is to be remembered that mere plea that a vehicle was stationary does not absolve the owner of vehicle from liability if the said vehicle was parked in an improper place causing such accident.”
Advocates Sucharita Paul & Jayanta Kumar Mandal appeared for the appellant Insurance Company.
Background
The accident occurred near Harina Bus Stand on National Highway-6. According to the claimants, the deceased husband was driving a four-wheeler accompanied by his wife and two daughters. At the relevant time, a lorry allegedly overtook their vehicle from the extreme left side of the road, causing dust to spread across the highway and obstruct visibility.
The claimants alleged that a mini-truck had been parked in the middle of the road in a non-parking zone without any signal, indicator or warning signs. Owing to the poor visibility created by the dust and the improper parking of the vehicle, the four-wheeler collided with the rear portion of the parked mini-truck.
As a result of the accident, the husband, wife and their elder daughter lost their lives, while the younger daughter sustained injuries. Separate claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
The Tribunal allowed the claims and awarded compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company preferred appeals before the High Court challenging both the findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation.
Court's Observations
The High Court rejected the principal contention of the Insurance Company that the owner of the offending vehicle could not be held liable because the vehicle was stationary.
The Bench noted that the Tribunal had examined the evidence and recorded findings regarding the negligent parking of the mini-truck in the middle of the road.
The Court observed: “Upon perusal of the charge sheet, it appears that the police stated that the incident happened because the driver of the vehicle parked the vehicle illegally on the road.”
The Court held that there was no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the offending vehicle on the highway. While dealing with the appeal relating to the death of the husband, the Court again considered the insurer's argument regarding the absence of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle.
The Court observed: “With regard to the ground of the appellant that the offending truck was stationary and hence not responsible for the accident it is to be remembered that merely a vehicle is stationary does not absolve its driver with regard to accident in the event said vehicle is parked in an unauthorized place.”
The Bench noted that the Tribunal had relied upon the testimony of two eyewitnesses and that the charge-sheet submitted by the police authorities also stated that the offending vehicle had been illegally parked on the road. According to the Court, the charge sheet corroborated the claimants' version regarding the manner of the accident.
The Insurance Company also argued that the eyewitnesses could not be relied upon because they were not summoned as witnesses.
The Court found that one of the witnesses was named in the charge sheet and that the statements made by the witnesses during cross-examination indicated that they had actually witnessed the accident.
The Bench remarked that “it is to be remembered that the fact the eye witness in motor accident claim case are not summoned witness does not destroy the credibility of the said witnesses if their evidence creates confidence in the minds of Court”.
The Bench further recorded: “Learned Judge also made it clear that no material evidence has been produced by the opposite party Insurance Company to substantiate that the deceased was responsible for the accident in any manner.”
While examining the cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of the deceased wife, the Court observed that there is no straight-jacket formula for assessing the notional income of a homemaker and that each case must be decided on its own facts.
The Court observed: “However, the loss suffered by members of family on the death of a housewife cannot be compensated by money. Thus, the compensation which appears to the Court as just and reasonable should be awarded.”
The Bench also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) and reproduced the observations recognising the invaluable contribution of a wife and mother to the family.
After considering the status of the family and the responsibilities discharged by the deceased, the Court found that compensation of ₹11 lakh would be just and reasonable in place of ₹9.17 lakh awarded by the Tribunal.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court held that the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the offending vehicle and rejected the insurer's contention that the vehicle's stationary position absolved its owner from liability. The Court further held that the evidence on record, including the charge-sheet and testimony of eye witnesses, supported the finding of negligence.
Accordingly, the Court modified the award relating to the deceased homemaker and enhanced the compensation from ₹9.17 lakh to ₹11 lakh together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks.
Cause Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saanvi Samanta & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:841)