The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India seeking ₹62,100 as compensation for damage caused to an Air Force vehicle in a 1998 road accident near the Main Gate of Air Force Station, Chabua.
Justice Manish Choudhury held that the evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the oil tanker that was hit from behind. The Court also found that the version given by the driver of the defence vehicle was contradicted by the sketch plan and photographs placed on record.
The dispute arose from a road accident that took place on June 12, 1998, near the Main Gate of Air Force Station, Chabua, on National Highway 37. The Union of India filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹62,100 for damage caused to its Swaraj Mazda defence vehicle. The owners and driver of the oil tanker, along with its insurer, were arrayed as the opposite parties.
The Union's case was that the oil tanker was parked on the left side of the highway without its rear parking lights or other visible warning signals. According to the driver of the defence vehicle, he was approaching the Air Force Station when a heavy vehicle came from the opposite direction with its headlights on high beam. He claimed that, while attempting to avoid a collision, he swerved and hit the parked tanker from behind. The defence vehicle suffered extensive damage, which was assessed at ₹62,100.
The accident also resulted in the death of one Air Force personnel, Balakrishnan Dupatne, while two others sustained injuries. A police case was registered, and the driver of the defence vehicle was charge-sheeted in connection with the accident.
Before the Tribunal, the Union examined three witnesses and produced documents including the Accident Information Report, traffic accident report, site sketch, photographs and technical inspection report. The Tribunal ultimately found that the tanker was parked on the left side of the road and that the defence vehicle had collided with it from behind. It therefore attributed negligence to the defence vehicle's driver and dismissed the compensation claim on February 9, 2011.
Before the High Court, the Union of India argued that the tanker was negligently parked without proper warning lights. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Justice Choudhury examined the testimony of the defence vehicle’s driver alongside the site sketch and photographs. The Court found inconsistencies in his account. The sketch plan showed that the tanker was parked on the left side of the National Highway, around 100 metres from the Air Force Station Main Gate, while the photographs showed it parked on the extreme left side of the road.
The Court observed:
“On analysis of the evidence on records in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal upon analysis of the evidence on record cannot be said to be without any basis, which needs any re-appreciation. On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record in its entirety, it is apparent that the version of the driver [P.W.1] is belied by the facts which had emerged from the other evidence on record.”
The Court held that the decision in Archit Saini was not of assistance to the appellant, noting the different circumstances in which the tanker was parked in that case..
The High Court concluded that there was no negligence, including contributory negligence, attributable to the oil tanker. It found that the defence vehicle had hit the tanker from behind and that the driver’s testimony did not inspire confidence.
The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Case Title: Union of India v. Md. Ismail & Others
Case Number: MAC Appeal No. 147/2014
Judge: Justice Manish Choudhury
