While restoring an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Supreme Court has held that Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which provides that the driver following another vehicle should maintain sufficient distance from the vehicle going in the front, has to be followed by the drivers on the road failing which it would be deemed to be negligent driving.

The appeal before the Apex Court involved the issue of the Insurance Company’s liability to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant, injured in the collision of two vehicles.

Referring to the judgment in Nishan Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager & Ors. (2018), the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “We also have to notice Nishan Singh which dealt with a similar case of a car following a truck at a distance of 10 to 15 feet which was found to be not a sufficient distance as mandated by law, especially looking at Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Regulation 23 provides that the driver following another vehicle should maintain sufficient distance from the vehicle going in the front to avoid a collision, keeping in mind the possibility of a sudden slowing down or stoppage. The Regulation has to be followed by the drivers on the road failing which it would be deemed to be negligent driving.”

AOR Amit Kumar Singh represented the Appellant, while Advocate Shantha Devi Raman represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2013 when a collision occurred between a trailer and a truck. The trailer was insured by the appellant, while the truck was insured by the respondent insurance company. The allegation in the claim petition was that the sudden brake applied by the trailer resulted in a collision, injuring the cleaner grievously. The Tribunal, looking at the evidence of the claimant, who was a Cleaner in the truck and travelling in it, found negligence on the part of the truck driver. The High Court, on an appeal by the insurer of the truck, reversed the findings of the Tribunal and put the liability on the insurer of the trailer.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the evidence of the claimant, the Bench found that when the trailer applied its brakes, the truck driver also applied his brakes, but was unable to control his vehicle since the truck was travelling at a distance of only 20 feet from the trailer. It was also deposed that if a truck moves at a speed of 30-40 km per hour, then it should maintain a gap of 40-50 feet to ensure effective control of the vehicle.

The Bench noted that there was no attempt by the respondent insurance company, the insurer of the truck, to examine the driver of the truck or that of the trailer or at least produce the records now produced, before the Tribunal. The criminal case, alleged to be one on the very same accident, was concluded in 2013, long before the disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal in 2019.

The Bench noticed that the cleaner of the vehicle, who was travelling inside the truck, categorically stated that the distance between the two vehicles was only 20 feet. “He is a person conversant with road safety norms, we should presume, by virtue of his avocation and he also categorically stated the safe distance to be maintained to avert an accident. The Cleaner deposed to the fact that the distance kept by his driver from the vehicle moving in the front was not adequate and sufficient so as to control the vehicle at the back, if the vehicle at the front abruptly stopped”, it added.

As per the Bench, the High Court erred in reversing the well-considered order of the Tribunal based on the evidence led before it. “We, hence, reverse the order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal, mulcting the liability on the respondent insurance company in the above appeal”, it held.

Rejecting the claims of contributory negligence, the Bench allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 208)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate K. Enatoli Sema, Advocates Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai

Respondent: Advocates Shantha Devi Raman, AOR Garvesh Kabra, Advocates Tanisha Gopal, Ankur Agnihotri, Arihant Jain, Aditya Sharma, Roy, AOR Neeraj Kumar Verma, Advocates Jaspreet Singh, Nandini Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment


Supreme CourtJustice Sanjay KumarJustice Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.