YOGINDER PAUL CHOWDHRY Vs. DURGA DASS PUNJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 53.1962. According to that the appellant was crossing the road opposite to the Regal Building in Parliament Street at about 3.30 p.m. on the date of the accident after satisfying himself that there was a red signal against the vehicular traffic coming from the Parliament Street towards connaught Circus. When the appellant was half-way across the road, the first respondent came driving the car at a fast speed and ignoring the road signal, continued to drive the car and knocked down the appellant. The appellant sustained a fracture on his leg. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. The appellant was removed to the hospital and his right leg was put under plaster. He had to remain in the hospital till 14.3.1962. Even after discharge from the hospital, he had to continue the treatment as an outdoor patient till 30th May, 1962. The injuries resulted in permanent partial disability and had affected his earning capacity. He estimated the compensation at Rs. 10,000.00and claimed this amount from. the driver-owner of the car, the first repondent herein, and the insurance company with which the car was insured, the second respondent herein.

(2.) The application was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the appellant himself inasmuch as he had crossed the road at a place not meant for pedestrians and also at a time when there was a green signal at the traffic point permitting the vehicles to proceed. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal : 1. Whether the petitioner was injured in accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 ? 2. To what amount as compensation is the petitioner entitled ? 3. Whether the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence ? 4. Relief. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the appellant himself and not due to the rash or negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. He therefore dismissed the application filed by the appellant. The latter has now preferred the present appeal against the said order of the learned Tribunal.

(3.) The first question for consideration is whether the accident took place as a result of rashness or negligence of the first respondent or whether it took place on account of the negligence of the appellant himself. In addition to the appellant, one more alleged eye-witness was examined by the appellant, in support of his case that the accident occurred due to the fault of the first respondent. A.W. 1 is Trilok Nath. He stated that he and the appellant were standing on the foot-path near the Regal Building and that the appellant crossed the road in front of the building. He beard a crash and saw that the appellant had been knocked down by the car. He then informed the appellant's wife on the telephone. The presence of this witness at the time of the accident appears to be doubtful. He admittedly is an interested witness because he is a colleague of the appellant who worked in the same office in which the appellant was working. Although he was a friend of the appellant still he did not remain at the scene of the accident till the arrival of the police nor did he give any report to the police about the accident. The report about the accident is said to have been given by one Trilochan Singh who, however, has not been examined as a witness. A.W. 1 also did not accompany the appellant to the hospital. A.W. 5 is the appellant himself. He does not throw much light upon the manner in which the accident occurred. He simply stated that when he was crossing the road he was knocked down by a car and became conscious and when he regained unconsciousness, he found himself on the foot-path.