Parking Truck On Highway At Night Without Indicators Is Gross Violation Of MV Act; Driver Solely Negligent For Accident: Gujarat High Court

"In the absence of any indicator or warning signal, it would have been difficult for the deceased to notice the truck parked on the road. The manner in which the truck was parked was in gross violation of the provisions contained in Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act," Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 5, 2026, held that a driver who parks a vehicle on a highway during night hours without indicators, parking signals, or reflectors is solely negligent for any resulting collision.

A bench of Justice Mool Chand Tyagi observed that such parking constitutes a "gross violation" of statutory duties under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court subsequently set aside the 30% contributory negligence previously attributed to a deceased scooterist by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

The matter arose from a 2017 accident where the deceased, Govindbhai Patel, dashed his scooter into the rear of a stationary truck parked partly on the road near Unjha at night. While the MACT, Patan, awarded compensation, it attributed 30% contributory negligence to the deceased for failing to spot the vehicle. The claimants appealed to the High Court, seeking a reversal of the negligence finding and an enhancement of the compensation amount under conventional heads.

The primary question before the Court was whether the deceased could be held contributorily negligent for hitting a stationary vehicle parked on a highway at night without any warning signals. The Court was also called upon to determine if the compensation awarded under conventional heads like funeral expenses and loss of consortium required enhancement as per established Supreme Court precedents.

Eyewitness Testimony Corroborates Claimants' Version

The Court relied heavily on the testimony of Savitaben, the pillion rider and eyewitness, who deposed that the truck was parked such that half of its body was on the road without any parking lights or reflectors. The bench noted that the Insurance Company failed to examine the truck driver to rebut this version. This failure to lead evidence from the person best suited to explain the parking conditions weighed heavily against the respondents.

Violation of Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Justice Tyagi emphasized that Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position, while Section 126 mandates precautions when a vehicle is stationary. The Court held that parking on a highway at 7:30 p.m. without cautionary signals or obstructions is inherently dangerous for oncoming traffic. The lack of any indicator made it nearly impossible for the deceased to avoid the collision.

"The manner in which the truck was parked was in gross violation of the provisions contained in Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act."

Tribunal's Finding of Contributory Negligence Reversed

Reversing the Tribunal’s decision to attribute 30% negligence to the deceased, the High Court held the truck driver entirely responsible for the mishap. The Court observed that dazzling lights from opposite-direction traffic often impair visibility on highways at night. In such circumstances, the stationary truck's failure to provide a warning signal was the proximate and sole cause of the accident.

Enhancement of Compensation Under Conventional Heads

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Court applied the 10% incremental enhancement for funeral expenses and loss of estate as mandated by the National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ruling. The bench noted that since the accident occurred in 2017, the original amounts awarded by the Tribunal were inadequate. Consequently, funeral expenses and loss of estate were enhanced to Rs. 18,150 each.

All Legal Heirs Entitled to Loss of Consortium

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the High Court held that all claimants, including the widow and children, are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. The Court awarded a total of Rs. 1,45,200 under this head, significantly increasing the Tribunal’s initial award. This ensured that the "just compensation" principle was upheld for all dependents.

"In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., all the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium."

Final Directions and Enhancement

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 5,96,020 to Rs. 9,25,944. The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 3,29,924 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The bench ordered that the entire awarded amount be disbursed to the appellants after due verification by the Tribunal.

The High Court's ruling reinforces the strict liability of drivers who obstruct highways without safety measures, shifting the burden entirely away from victims of poorly lit stationary vehicles. By setting aside the contributory negligence finding, the Court clarified that highway safety depends primarily on the adherence to parking regulations by heavy vehicle operators.

Date of Decision: 05 May 2026