respondent No.2 in the counter, wherein it was averrdd that the Cement Tanker was parked in the vehicle in the middle of the road without taking any proper care and caution. There is no whisper in the counter of respondent No.2 about applying sudden breaks by the driver of cement tanker. As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, as per the contents of charge sheet it is clear that RTC Bus (crime vehicle) dashed against stationed cement tanker. Thus, in order to avoid the liability, the respondent No. I as RWl introduced a new theory that the accident occurred as the driver of the cement tanker applied sudden breaks. Even otherwise, it is to be seen that time of the accident was in the midnight and in such circumstances, no vehicle will apply sudden breaks unnecessarily. It is not the case of the respondents, that without any reason the driver of the cement lorry applicd sudden breaks. Further, a driver driving behind another vehicle, shall keep sufhcient distance, commensurate with the traflic conditions, from the vehicle ahead, so as to be able to stop (pull up) the vehicle safely if the vehicle ahead suddenly slows down or stops. It is to be seen that tl,e respondent No.1 is driving a vehicle, which is a public transport vehicle carrying passengers and in such circumstances a great deal of caution
