United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Sunita Rani & Ors.

1. This appealhas been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 20th August 2025 (‘impugned award’) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’) in MACT 655/2018, whereby compensation of Rs. 22,35,100/- along with interest rate of 9% per annum was awarded.

2. The incident occurred on 15th May 2018 at about[3].30 a.m., when the deceased Mithu, alongwith the injured, Waseem, werecoming from Rohtak to Delhi in a car driven by Waseem. When they reach Sector 49 near Bypass Mor Bahadurgarh, Haryana, their car hit a truck which was parked negligently on the road without any indicator lights or reflectors.

3. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot. Injured MAC APP 87/2026 2 of 6 Waseem took Mithu to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.

4. FIR no. 265/2018under Sections 283/337/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS City Bahadurgarh Haryana, which culminated in filing of a charge sheet.

5. Mr. Harsh Kumar, counsel for appellant/insurance company, challenges the award on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the insurance company had pleaded contributory negligence on part of the injured driver, Waseem, as thecar had rammed into the rear of a stationary truck, indicating that it must have been driven at a high speed.

6. The said aspect was considered by MACT in paragraph 33 of the impugned award. The MACT noted that the offending vehicle was parked on a curved road without any hazard lights, thereby clearly establishing negligence on the part of the truck driver.

7. Moreover,therewas no proof, if the injured Waseem was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, they could not be held liable for contributory negligence.

8. The Courthas examined the records which have been placed as part of the appealincluding the charge-sheet and the written statement filed by appellant.

9. Thereis nothingon record to suggest that theoffendingtruckwas not parked on theturn/curveofa highway and hadtaken precautions by turning on its hazard lights, particularly considering it was 3:30 a.m.

10. Reliance may be placed the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this court in Meenu Attery & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2024:DHC:9483, wherein a motorcycle collided with a stationary truck parked in middleof the road without visible indicator or blinkers. Relying MAC APP 87/2026 3 of 6 on the judgment of Apex Courtin JumaniBegum vRam Naryan, (2020) 5 SCC 807 held as under:

11. Reliance can also be placed on Apex Court judgment of Sushma v Nitin GanapatiRangoleand Ors., 2024 SCC OnLineSC 2584, wherein car collided with truck that was left abandoned in middle of the highway without any warning signs i.e. indicators, or parking lights. The Supreme Court held as under: “40. On a holistic analysisof the material available on record, it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road withoutanyparking lights being switched on and withoutanymarkers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. This omission by the person in MAC APP 87/2026 4 of 6 control of the said truck was in clear violation of law. The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through thehighwayin the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationaryvehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision. The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained. Hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of this Court's powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts.”

12. In the present case, thechargesheetclearly provides that thetruck was parked on a curve of the road without any hazard lights or warning indicators at night. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’bleSupremeCourtand this Court, the driver of the offending truck is solely negligent in causing the accident.

13. Further, thereis no evidence to show thatthecar driven by theinjured Waseem was being driven in excess of theprescribedspeedlimit or in a rash and negligent manner.

14. In view of these facts and circumstances, judgment and considering that theliability has been assessed on a preponderanceofprobabilities, as is the settled law, this ground of appeal is not sustainable.