PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2753-2003 (O&M) The State of Haryana & Ors. v. Parkash Kaur & Ors.

admiEng registra)on of FIR No.83 dated 04.05.2000 rela)ng to the earlier accident involving the truck, it was pleaded that the deceased was driving at high speed and that DDR No.35 dated 04.05.2000 was recorded regarding the present accident. Liability to compensate was denied.

6. Necessary issues were framed. The claimants examined three witnesses. AW1 Vivek Malhotra and AW3 Smt. Parkash Kaur proved the income and dependency aspects, whereas AW2 Shivji Ramson, an eyewitness travelling in the vehicle, deposed that two trucks involved in the earlier accident were lying on the road without parking lights, indicators, or warning arrangements. He further tes)fied that due to glare from oncoming traffic and absence of cau)onary signals, the deceased manoeuvred the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.23 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vehicle towards the right side, leading to the collision. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:1)

7. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 Inspector Inder Singh, SHO Police Sta)on Meham, proved DDR No.35 (Ex.R1), FIR rela)ng to the earlier accident (Ex.R2), and the inquest report (Ex.R3). His tes)mony confirmed the presence of the sta)onary truck but did not establish that any precau)onary measures were taken to warn approaching vehicles.

8.1 Upon appraisal of the evidence, the Tribunal no)ced that the FIR rela)ng to the earlier accident was recorded at 2:00 AM, whereas the DDR concerning the present accident was recorded at 8:00 AM, thereby indica)ng a substan)al )me gap during which the accident site remained una<ended. The Tribunal further observed that the State authori)es failed to demonstrate that warning signs, barricading, ligh)ng, or traffic regula)on measures were undertaken aIer the earlier accident.

8.2 Referring to Sec)ons 122, 126 and 127 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal held that no vehicle can be permi<ed to remain abandoned or sta)oned in a manner endangering public safety, and that police authori)es are under a statutory obliga)on to remove una<ended vehicles crea)ng traffic hazards.

8.3 Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that negligence was a<ributable both to the truck owner and the State authori)es, while also a<ribu)ng par)al contributory negligence to the deceased for not exercising due cau)on.

8.4 The Tribunal assessed compensa)on at ₹6,26,400/-, restricted en)tlement to dependent claimants Nos.1 and 4, and aIer deduc)ng 50% on account of contributory negligence, awarded ₹3,22,700/- with interest, fastening joint and several liability upon all respondents.

9. Submissions before this Court : Learned State counsel argues that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who could have no)ced the sta)onary truck, and that the State cannot be held liable for the consequences of an earlier accident caused by private par)es. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.23 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:1)

10. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the other respondents at the )me of hearing and they were proceeded against ex parte.

11. Considera(cid:19)on by the Court : Having considered the submissions and examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal for the reasons recorded hereinaIer.

12. The principal ques)on that arises for considera)on is whether the con)nued presence of the accident-hit truck on the carriageway for several hours, without any warning signals or traffic regulatory measures, cons)tutes ac)onable negligence on the part of the police authori)es so as to fasten liability upon the State.

13. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The earlier accident in- volving the truck was reported at about 2:00 AM, whereas the subsequent accident resul)ng in the death of Harbhagwan Singh Sodhi occurred at about 8:00 AM. The intervening period of nearly six hours clearly indicates that the obstruc)on remained on the public road for a substan)al dura)on.

14. The tes)mony of AW2 Shivji Ramson, an eyewitness travelling in the car of the deceased, establishes that the truck was lying on the main road without barricades, warning lights, reflectors, or diversion arrange- ments. The said tes)mony has remained unimpeached. Significantly, RW1 Inspector Inder Singh did not depose that any precau)onary measures were undertaken by the authori)es aIer registra)on of the FIR rela)ng to the earlier accident.

15. The statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act recognises the risk posed by sta)onary or abandoned vehicles on public roads. Sec)on 126 prohibits allowing a vehicle to remain sta)onary in a public place without adequate safeguards. Sec)on 127(2) authorises and obligates the police officer having jurisdic)on to ensure immediate removal of an una<ended YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.23 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vehicle crea)ng traffic hazard or obstruc)on. These provisions impose a (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:1) posi)ve and con)nuing duty upon the authori)es to render the road reas- onably safe for subsequent users. Failure to discharge such statutory duty cons)tutes negligence per se.

16. A heavy vehicle lying on the carriageway during hours of dark- ness without illumina)on or warning indicators cons)tutes a patent hazard. The likelihood of a secondary collision in such circumstances is not merely possible but reasonably foreseeable. The omission of the authori)es to re- move the obstruc)on or to provide adequate warning measures therefore becomes a proximate and effec)ve cause contribu)ng to the accident.

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corpora(cid:19)on of Delhi v. Subhagwan(cid:19) 1966 SCR (3) 649 held that where a hazardous condi)on under the control of a public authority causes injury, the authority is liable for negligence notwithstanding absence of specific proof of fault. Similarly, in Nilaba(cid:19) Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and others, 1993 (2) SCC 746, the Supreme Court recognised that the State is liable for negligent acts or omissions of its officials affec)ng life and safety of ci)zens.

18. The duty of authori)es to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condi)on has further been emphasised in Municipal Corpora(cid:19)on of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer and another, 2003 (8) SCC 731, where fail- ure to address a dangerous road condi)on was held to a<ract liability.

19. In present case, the facts proved on record disclose composite negligence involving the truck owner/driver who leI the vehicle obstruc)ng the road; and the State authori)es, who failed to neutralise the hazard within a reasonable )me.

20. In Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2015 (9) SCC 273, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases of composite negli- gence, the claimant is en)tled to recover compensa)on from any of the joint torPeasors and appor)onment is primarily inter se. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.23 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:1)

21. Considering all the aforesaid facts & circumstances and the legal posi)on, the Tribunal’s conclusion a<ribu)ng liability to both the truck owner and the State authori)es is therefore legally sound.

22. The Tribunal has already deducted 50% compensa)on on ac- count of contributory negligence of the deceased. The State has failed to establish that the said finding is either excessive or unsupported by evid- ence. Where a sta)onary vehicle remains unlit and unguarded on the road- way, the inference of contributory negligence must necessarily be drawn.

23. The findings regarding negligence and appor)onment are find- ings of fact based upon apprecia)on of evidence. The appellate court does not ordinarily interfere unless such findings are perverse or based on mis- reading of evidence.

24. The award demonstrates a proper apprecia)on of oral and documentary evidence and correct applica)on of statutory provisions gov- erning removal of hazardous vehicles. No perversity or legal infirmity is shown.

25. Conclusion : This Court is sa)sfied that the failure of the police authori)es to remove or adequately secure the accident-hit truck for sev- eral hours amounted to breach of statutory and common law duty, thereby contribu)ng to the accident. The finding of composite negligence and the consequent fastening of liability upon the State does not suffer from any il- legality or perversity.

26. As such, no ground for interference with the well-reasoned award passed by the Tribunal is made out. Consequently, the present ap- peal is dismissed. The award of the learned Tribunal is affirmed. Pending applica)ons, if any, also stand disposed of.

23.03.2026 Yogesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.23 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:29)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:19)