JUDGMENT : Heard Sri A N Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prithvi Raj B N, learned counsel who is representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Smt Bharathi who is representing Sri Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel on record for respondent No 4. 2. Assailing and disputing the findings given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur through orders in MVC No.7/2020 dated 11.02.2021 by which liability is fastened upon the appellant herein to pay compensation to the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 herein, present appeal is preferred. The appellant is the Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.40,78,310/- as compensation in favour of the claimants fastening the liability upon the owner and insurance company of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-09-D-1497 and directed them to pay the amount awarded. 4. The matrix of the case as could be perceived from the material available on record is that on 15.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased – Pruthviraj.M (hereinafter referred to as deceased for brevity) was proceeding on bike bearing Reg. No. KA- 54-J-8498 from Hunsur towards Mysuru, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-09-D-1497, was proceeding ahead of him. The driver of the said lorry was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the lorry applied sudden brake without any signal and therefore the back side body of the lorry hit the motor bike of the deceased. Due to which the deceased fell down with his bike and sustained head injury and died on the spot. 5. Advancing his stand that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the negligence is not on the part of the driver of the lorry, learned counsel for the appellant Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy submits that the accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry but due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike by the deceased. Learned counsel submits that it is incumbent on the part of drivers of the motor vehicles to keep sufficient distance between the vehicle he is driving and the vehicle ahead of him. But in the case on hand, the deceased failed to maintain such distance and thereby deceased himself negligently hit the bike to lorry and thereby the accident occurred. Learned counsel submits that it is incumbent on the part of drivers of the motor vehicles to keep sufficient distance between the vehicle he is driving and the vehicle ahead of him. But in the case on hand, the deceased failed to maintain such distance and thereby deceased himself negligently hit the bike to lorry and thereby the accident occurred. Learned counsel also states that as the deceased was negligent, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability against the insurance company. Learned counsel took support of his submission by the rules and the regulations framed by the Central Government. He relies upon Rule 23 of the Rules of The Road Regulations, 1989 published vide Notification S.O. 439 (E), dated 12.06.1989. Rule 23 of the said Rules reads as under : “Distance from vehicles in front – The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” 6. Also contending that in the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the rider of the vehicle who did not maintain sufficient distance from the vehicle ahead is to be found fault with, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Nishan Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2018 ACJ 1466 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with a case where a Maruthi Car hit a truck which was running ahead of it, at paras 10 and 11 held as under : “10. The expression ‘sufficient distance’ had not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10-15 ft between the truck and Maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of Maruti car must take the blame. It is must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants. 11. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the driver of the truck suddenly applied his brakes in the middle of the road.” 7. It is must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants. 11. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the driver of the truck suddenly applied his brakes in the middle of the road.” 7. Projecting the aforementioned decision and Rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, learned counsel Sri A.N Krishnaswamy ultimately seeks to allow this appeal and thereby set aside the award of the Tribunal. 8. Contradicting the submission thus made, Sri Prithvi Raj B.N, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there was no material to show that the deceased failed to maintain sufficient distance between his vehicle and offending vehicle. Learned counsel contends that entire negligence lies on the part of the driver of the lorry as he abruptly and suddenly applied brakes. Learned counsel further submits that when brakes are applied, the indicators should show the application of brakes but in the case on hand there was no possibility for the deceased to witness the indicators of the offending vehicle and the same is borne by record and therefore the defence taken by the insurance company is wholly unsustainable. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant relies upon Rule 24 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 which reads as under : “No driver of a vehicle shall apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons.” 10. Equally Rule 13 of these rules more particularly Rule 13 (a) which deals with the duty of the driver when about to slow down the vehicle reads as under : “When about to slow down, a driver shall extend his right arm with the palm downward and to the right of the vehicle and shall move the arm so extended up and down several times in such a manner that the signal can be seen by the driver of any vehicle which may be behind him.” 11. Therefore, by aforementioned rules it is clear that the driver shall not apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. Therefore, by aforementioned rules it is clear that the driver shall not apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. Also when the driver is about to slow down the vehicle, he shall extend his right arm with the palm the downward and to the right of the vehicle and he shall move the arm extended up and down several times in such a manner that the signal can be seen by the driver of any vehicle which may be behind him. 12. The complaint in this case was given by one Suresh. Ex.P19 is the copy of the said complaint. In the said complaint the complainant i.e Suresh had clearly mentioned that the offending vehicle was moving on road and behind the offending vehicle, the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler and behind him he was moving and when the driver of the lorry applied sudden brake, the two wheeler of the deceased hit the lorry and thereby the accident occurred. Ex.P21 – Spot panchanama is a crucial document which also throws light with regard to the facts of the case and the aspect of negligence. In Ex.P21 – Spot mahazar there is clear mention that the offending vehicle i.e., Ashok Leyland lorry was proceeding on the road and the back door of the said lorry was opened and a tarpaulin was over it, due to which the signal light cannot be visible. This spot mahazar was conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of panch witnesses. It is incumbent of the owner of the lorry to keep the back door of the lorry closed so that a signal lights would be visible to the drivers of the vehicles who move following the lorry. However, in the case on hand, it is abundantly clear that as the back door of the lorry was kept open with a tarpaulin over it, there is no possibility for the drivers of the vehicle moving following the offending vehicle to look at the indicators. Thus, it is clear that when the driver of the lorry applied sudden brake, the deceased could not at least see the indicator. 13. By producing all the relevant documents along with the oral testimony of the eye witness i.e., PW.2, the claimants have clearly established that the driver of the lorry was at fault. Thus, it is clear that when the driver of the lorry applied sudden brake, the deceased could not at least see the indicator. 13. By producing all the relevant documents along with the oral testimony of the eye witness i.e., PW.2, the claimants have clearly established that the driver of the lorry was at fault. The appellant – insurance company which has taken a specific plea that the deceased was negligent as he failed to keep sufficient distance between his vehicle and forgoing vehicle has not even pressed any iota of evidence to establish the said fact. Also it is not known how the insurance company has come to a conclusion that the deceased failed to maintain sufficient distance and he was at fault. 14. When a specific plea is taken by a party to the proceedings, it is for that party to establish that plea by cogent and convincing evidence. Raising different and distinct pleas itself is not sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. In the case on hand, there is no substantive proof to show that the deceased was negligent and that accident occurred due to his own negligence or that he contributed for the accident to occur. Thus, in the light of the forgoing facts, we are of the considered view that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be applied to the facts of this case. The Tribunal having discussed the facts of the case at length, has came to just conclusion that appellant has failed to establish the aspect of negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, it has rightly fastened the liability against the insurance company. This Court does not find any grounds more so convincing grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Thus, this court holds that there are no grounds to interfere. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hunsur in MVC.No.7/2020 dated 11.02.2021. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.