NIRMAL SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the claimant is against an award of dismissal in a case where the claimant, who was the owner, was travelling in a truck and the accident took place when his driver, in an attempt to save an animal that was crossing the road swerved to the wrong side of the road and dashed against a stationary truck from behind. The accident had taken place on a national highway where the evidence was that the road was 80 feet broad. In the manner in which the narration was made relating to the accident, the Tribunal held that if the driver of the truck had been careful, he could not have dashed against the stationary truck and that further the road was broad enough to have enabled the driver to 2-avert the collision against a stationary truck if he had not been rash and negligent.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would fault at the reasoning on the ground that it was an hilly area and a truck could not have been parked on the road and it was a stationary truck which must be taken as contributing to the accident. I cannot take such a line of reasoning that it will be at all times wrong to park any vehicle on the road. What Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position unattended or with a view to obstruct or cause undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers, the mere parking of a vehicle on the public road is not an offence unless it was a no-parking zone. If it were to be that the vehicle had been dangerously parked which was in such a way to obstruct traffic, then I will have no difficulty in accepting the Appellant's contention. There is no such evidence that the stationary vehicle had been dangerously parked at a place that it ought not to have been done. cannot make an assumption of a dangerous parking in every instance where there is a collision against a stationary vehicle. It is invariably a question of fact. The Tribunal has considered the fact in its full perspective and has led the blame on the claimant and attributed a rashness in his driving that caused a collision on such a broad road which was 80 feet wide. I cannot persuade myself to take a different reasoning than how the Tribunal has dealt with the case.

(3.) The claim cannot succeed for the negligence and rash driving of his own driving and there is no cause of action to sustain the claim against the owner and insurer of the stationary truck. I dismiss the appeal and affirm the award passed by the Tribunal.