'Sudden brakes negligence on the highway without warning, even in emergencies', the Supreme Court expressed an important decision in this case - with sudden brakes on the highway without warning, even in need is negligence, says the Supreme Court

A Bank of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Arvind Kumar said on Tuesday that a sudden stop by a manager, or due to personal distress, cannot be justified because it cannot be justified because it may be a threat to others on the road. The cause of the accident is a sudden brake by the car driver. Pti, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court said in an important ruling that if a car driver suddenly brakes without any warning on the highway, he can be considered negligent in the state of a road accident. The Pointing Court expressed the important ruling of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Arind Kumar on Tuesday that a sudden stop by a driver in the middle of the highway, even if due to personal distress, could not be justified as it could be a threat to others on the road. Justice Dhulia, who wrote a decision for the back, said: “The high speed of vehicles on the highway is expected, and if a driver wants to stop his vehicle, his responsibility to warn or indicate that other vehicles are running on the road.” In Coimbatore in 2017, the car driver was convicted of a road accident; This decision was made by engineering student Sk Mohammad Hakim came to a petition. On January 7, 2017, he had to cut his left leg after a road accident in Coimbatore. The incident happened when Hakim’s motorcycle collided with the back of a car that suddenly stopped. As a result, Hakim fell on the road and a bus coming from behind hit him. The car driver claims that his pregnant wife is vomiting, so that he suddenly brought brakes. The Apex Court rejected the explanation, saying that the explanation given by the car driver to stop the car suddenly in the middle of the highway does not apply to any point of view. The petition of Hakim to increase the compensation to increase compensation, said: “It is true that the appellant is correct that the appellant certainly took indifference to maintain a sufficient distance from the moving vehicle and performed a motorcycle without a valid license.” At the same time, the bank said it could not be ignored that the cause of the accident was the sudden brake by the car driver. The court held the appellant liable for negligence only to a limit of only 20 percent, while the car driver and bus driver were held responsible for negligence to the limit of 50 percent and 30 percent respectively. The tribunal declared the car driver. The court valued the total amount of compensation at Rs 1.14 crore, but due to the negligence of the participant’s negligence, it reduced it by 20 percent, which must be paid by the insurance companies of both vehicles within four weeks. In this case, the car accident claim that the car driver was convicted and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. The tribunal blamed the appellant for 20 percent negligence not to maintain adequate distance from the car. However, the Madras High Court held the car driver and the bus driver to the limit of 40 and 30 percent respectively and the appellant up to 30 percent for negligence.