Parked Vehicle Not Negligent Where Driver Could Avoid Collision: Gauhati High Court Rejects Claim For Damage To Air Force Vehicle

Finding that the Air Force driver had sufficient time to avoid the collision, the Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal seeking compensation for damage to its vehicle.

The Court was hearing the Union’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of its claim under Section 166 of the Act for ₹62,100 in damage to an Air Force vehicle. The claim was brought against the oil tanker’s owners, driver and insurer.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed: “In the case in hand, the oil tanker was found parked on the left side of National Highway. As per the version of P.W.1, the oil tanker was parked after the Railway crossings to go towards the Main Gate of the Air Force Station, Chabua. As per the Sketch Plan [Exhibit-4], the oil tanker was parked at a distance of about 100 meters from the Main Gate and on the left and, conspicuously, on the opposite side, allegedly without its parking light on. The driver of the defence vehicle [P.W.1] is found to have got sufficient time to exercise due care and caution to avoid any kind of collision with the vehicle coming from the opposite direction on national highway with high beam lights on. It can be noticed from the testimony of the driver of the defence vehicle that even if testimony of the driver of the defence vehicle is accepted to be true then he could have exercised due care and caution while turning 90° towards his left, at a slow speed after applying brakes, to avoid any accident. Therefore, the decision in Archit Saini [supra] is not found to be of any assistance to the case of the appellant.”

The Court concluded: “In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned therein, this Court does not find any negligence on the part of the oil tanker, much less contributory negligence, 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. Consequently, the appeal is bereft of any merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the same is dismissed.”

Central Government Counsel K.K. Parashar appeared for the Union, while Advocate K.K. Bhatta appeared for the tanker’s insurer.

Background

The Union sought compensation after an Air Force vehicle hit a parked oil tanker from behind near the main gate of the Air Force Station at Chabua. It alleged that the tanker had been parked without rear parking lights. The Air Force driver said he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle whose headlights were on high beam.

The Tribunal found that the tanker was parked on the left side of the highway and that the Air Force driver was responsible for the collision. It also noted that the Union’s witnesses had not disclosed that one occupant of the Air Force vehicle had died and two others had been injured. The Tribunal dismissed the claim.

In appeal, the Union argued that its driver had exercised due care and that negligence lay with the tanker, relying on Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2018). The insurer maintained that the Air Force driver’s driving caused the accident and that it bore no liability.

Court’s Observations

The Court compared the driver’s account with the sketch plan, which placed the tanker about 100 metres from the Air Force Station’s main gate, on the left side of the highway and opposite the gate and railway crossing. The Court observed: “When such testimony of the driver of the defence vehicle is considered together with the Sketch Plan, exhibited as Exhibit-4, the Sketch Plan is found to have projected a different scenario. As per the Sketch Plan, the oil tanker was parked at a distance of approximately 100 meters from the Air Force Station Main Gate and it was not parked across the Railway lines which had to be crossed to reach the Main Gate of the Air Force Station. As per the Sketch Plan, the oil tanker was on the left side of National Highway and in the opposite side of the Main Gate of the Air Force Station, Chabua and the Railway lines.”

The photographs showed the tanker at the extreme left of the road and damage from a rear impact to its right corner. The Court found that the driver’s account of the vehicle’s movement did not accord with the sketch plan and photographs.

The Court noted that the accident report recorded one death and two injuries, which the Union had not disclosed while pursuing its vehicle-damage claim. The Tribunal had also recorded that the Air Force driver was charge-sheeted in connection with the accident; the Union had not disputed that fact in its appeal.

On the Tribunal’s assessment, the Court observed: “On analysis of the evidence on records in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal upon analysis of the evidence on record cannot be said to be without any basis, which needs any re-appreciation. 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.”

The Court distinguished Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2018), in which the tanker had been parked in the middle of a busy road without an indicator or parking lights. It recalled: “In the said case, it had emerged that the accident occurred at about 10-30 p.m. on 15.12.2011 and the accident occurred due to collision of a Maruti car with the gas tanker, which was found parked in the middle of the road, which was a busy road, without any indicator or parking lights.”

Here, by contrast, the tanker was parked on the left side of the highway. The Court found that the Air Force driver had time to exercise care to avoid the oncoming vehicle and the parked tanker, even on his own account of the events.

Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal of the Union’s vehicle-damage claim. Finding no negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the parked oil tanker, it dismissed the Union’s appeal.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Md. Ismail & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:12041)

Appearances

Appellant: Central Government Counsel K.K. Parashar

Respondent: Advocate K.K. Bhatta

Click here to read/download Judgment