MACT Claim | Driver Colliding With Parked Vehicle Cannot Shift Liability Without Proving Negligence Of Owner Of Parked Vehicle: Gauhati High Court

"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." Gauhati High Court, in a judgment, held that a driver who collides with a stationary vehicle from behind cannot establish a claim for damages under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by merely alleging the stationary vehicle was parked without lights.

A bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed that the burden of proving negligence or contributory negligence lies squarely on the claimant, and the mere act of hitting a parked vehicle from the rear generally raises a presumption of rash and negligent driving by the rear-ending driver.

Failure to Discharge Evidentiary Burden

The appellant, Union of India, sought compensation of Rs. 62,100 for damages sustained by a defence vehicle that rammed into the back of an oil tanker parked on the side of National Highway No. 37. The appellant argued that the tanker was parked without back parking lights, thereby causing the collision. However, the court found the evidence presented by the appellant to be inconsistent with the physical evidence on record.

Reliance on Sketch Plan and Physical Evidence

The court noted that the Sketch Plan and photographs of the accident site contradicted the testimony of the defence vehicle’s driver. While the driver claimed he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle and hit the tanker, the physical evidence revealed that the defence vehicle had struck the rear right corner of the tanker, which was parked on the extreme left side of the road.

Court Rejects Applicability of Precedents

The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Archit Saini vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited to argue that the tanker owner was liable for parking on the road. The High Court distinguished the present case, noting that unlike Archit Saini, where a vehicle was parked in the middle of a busy road, the tanker here was parked on the side of the highway. The court held that the driver of the defence vehicle had sufficient time and space to exercise caution and avoid the collision.

Adverse Presumption Due to Suppression of Facts

The Tribunal below had drawn an adverse inference against the appellant because the claimant suppressed the fact that the accident resulted in a fatality and injuries to other occupants. The High Court affirmed this view, noting that the driver of the defence vehicle had been charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 304A, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The failure of the claimant to address these criminal proceedings further eroded the credibility of the claim.

No Case for Contributory Negligence

The court concluded that the entire negligence for the collision rested with the driver of the defence vehicle. Rejecting the plea for compensation, the court observed that the version of events provided by the driver did not inspire confidence and failed to establish any actionable negligence against the respondents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the dismissal of the claim application by the Tribunal was upheld.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2026