The Supreme Court has ruled that a driver must maintain an adequate distance from the vehicle in front to avoid a collision, failing which it would be deemed to be “negligent driving” and attract prosecution and liability.
The court said that under Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, a driver must keep a sufficient gap with the vehicle in front as the possibility of that car braking suddenly must always be considered.
“The Regulation has to be followed by the drivers on the road, failing which it would be deemed to be negligent driving,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said in an order.
The bench passed the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company challenging a high court judgment that had taken a contrary view and ruled in favour of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
On May 19, 2013, around 11pm, a collision occurred when a trailer insured by Oriental Insurance Company was hit by a truck insured by AIG General Insurance Company Limited from behind. The collision is stated to have happened after the trailer driver suddenly applied the brakes, resulting in grievous injuries to the cleaner of the truck.
The trailer driver had been negligent, according to Tata AIG, while Oriental Insurance contended the truck driver was at fault as he had failed to maintain a sufficient gap between the vehicles.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), looking at the evidence of the claimant cleaner, found negligence on the truck driver's part.
However, the high court, on an appeal by the insurer of the truck, reversed the findings of the tribunal and put the liability on the insurer of the trailer — Oriental. Aggrieved, Oriental filed an appeal in the apex court.
Allowing the plea, the Supreme Court said: “We see from the evidence of the claimant that when the trailer applied its brakes, the truck driver also applied his brakes, but was unable to control his vehicle since the truck was travelling at a distance of only 20 feet from the trailer.
"It was also deposed that if a truck moves at a speed of 30-40km per hour, then it should maintain a gap of 40-50 feet, to ensure effective control of the vehicle. A suggestion was answered in the affirmative that if the truck had maintained a distance of 40-50 feet, then the accident could have been averted.”
The bench noted that the cleaner of the truck had categorically stated that the distance between the two vehicles was only 20 feet.
“He is a person conversant with road safety norms, we should presume, by virtue of his avocation and he also categorically stated the safe distance to be maintained to avert an accident.
"The cleaner deposed to the fact that the distance kept by his driver from the vehicle moving in the front was not adequate and sufficient so as to control the vehicle at the back, if the vehicle at the front abruptly stopped.
"We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in reversing the well-considered order of the Tribunal based on the evidence led before it. We, hence, reverse the order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal, mulcting the liability on the respondent insurance company in the above appeal,” the Supreme Court said.
