Motor Vehicles Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide
Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 126 of Motor Vehicles Act: Motor Vehicle Regulation & Claims Procedure
Official Bare Act Text
Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary
No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the drivers seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver.
Section 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits leaving a motor vehicle stationary in any public place unless a licensed driver is in the driver's seat, or the engine mechanism is stopped and mechanical brakes are securely applied to prevent accidental movement.
Proscription on Unattended Stationary Vehicles: Mandates that no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall leave it stationary in any public street or highway unattended without executing specific safety precautions.
Alternative Safeguard Standards: Requires either: (a) the continuous presence of a duly licensed driver in the driver's seat; or (b) the complete stoppage of the engine mechanism and the secure application of mechanical parking/hand brakes.
Mandatory Anti-Rollaway Measures: Requires taking all necessary additional precautions (such as curbing the wheels or using wheel chocks on steep inclines) to ensure the vehicle cannot accidentally or spontaneously be put in motion in the driver's absence.
Key Landmark Precedents:
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (1977) 2 SCC 745: The Supreme Court affirmed that where a parked vehicle unexpectedly moves or causes an accident in the absence of the driver, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies; the failure to apply handbrakes and turn off the engine under Section 126 raises a conclusive presumption of negligence against the driver and owner.
State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke (1995) 5 SCC 659: The Supreme Court held that the owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of an authorized driver who leaves a vehicle unattended or with the engine running, holding that statutory safety obligations under Chapter VIII must be strictly adhered to by authorized custodians.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:
When a stationary vehicle parked on an incline rolls down and crushes a pedestrian or collides with oncoming traffic, frame the MACT claim around Section 126. The claimant does not need to prove positive mechanical tampering by third parties; under Pushpabai Udeshi, the mere roll-away movement of an unattended vehicle is res ipsa loquitur proof of Section 126 breach.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 126
Section 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits leaving a motor vehicle stationary in any public place unless a licensed driver is in the driver's seat, or the engine mechanism is stopped and mechanical brakes are securely applied to prevent accidental movement.
When a stationary vehicle parked on an incline rolls down and crushes a pedestrian or collides with oncoming traffic, frame the MACT claim around Section 126. The claimant does not need to prove positive mechanical tampering by third parties; under Pushpabai Udeshi, the mere roll-away movement of an unattended vehicle is res ipsa loquitur proof of Section 126 breach.