Evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — FIR/Criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value — Tribunal to be guided by evidence led before it. (Paras 7–9) The respondent relied on documents relating to a criminal case allegedly involving confession of the trailer driver. The Court declined to place reliance on such documents, observing that the FIR details were unclear and that criminal proceedings concluded much before disposal of the claim petition were not proved before the Tribunal. Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, it was reiterated that what matters before the Tribunal is the evidence adduced therein, and contents of FIR or criminal proceedings cannot override clear oral evidence recorded in the claim proceedings. Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, findings on negligence must be based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal; FIR contents or criminal case outcomes do not by themselves determine civil liability

advocatemmmohan

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor accident — Collision between vehicle in front and vehicle behind — Duty to maintain safe distance — Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 — Liability of insurer. (Paras 6, 10–11)

The accident involved a trailer moving in front and a truck following behind. The claimant, a Cleaner travelling in the truck, deposed that the truck was travelling at a distance of only 20 feet behind the trailer and that at a speed of 30–40 km per hour, a gap of 40–50 feet was necessary to ensure effective control. He admitted that had such distance been maintained, the accident could have been averted.

Relying on Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the Court reiterated that the driver of a vehicle following another must maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision in case of sudden braking. Failure to maintain such distance amounts to negligent driving.

The Tribunal had rightly fastened negligence on the truck driver. The High Court erred in reversing the finding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a vehicle travelling behind fails to maintain sufficient distance as mandated by Regulation 23, and collision occurs upon sudden braking of the vehicle ahead, negligence lies primarily on the following vehicle.

---

Evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — FIR/Criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value — Tribunal to be guided by evidence led before it. (Paras 7–9)

The respondent relied on documents relating to a criminal case allegedly involving confession of the trailer driver. The Court declined to place reliance on such documents, observing that the FIR details were unclear and that criminal proceedings concluded much before disposal of the claim petition were not proved before the Tribunal.

Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, it was reiterated that what matters before the Tribunal is the evidence adduced therein, and contents of FIR or criminal proceedings cannot override clear oral evidence recorded in the claim proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, findings on negligence must be based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal; FIR contents or criminal case outcomes do not by themselves determine civil liability.

---

Contributory negligence — Plea — Absence of evidence — Rejection. (Para 12)

The attempt to attribute contributory negligence was rejected for want of any valid evidence establishing negligence on the part of the trailer driver sufficient to displace the primary negligence of the truck driver.

Ratio Decidendi: Contributory negligence must be established by cogent evidence; mere suggestion in cross-examination without substantive proof is insufficient.

---

Final Order

Order of the High Court set aside. Award of the Tribunal restored, fastening liability on the insurer of the truck, namely Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Appeal allowed. Pending applications disposed of.