JAI BHAGWAN Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed aganist the award dated December 21, 1981 of Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Triound Delhi

(2.) The brief facts aie the on May 31, 1977 the appellant Jai Bhagwan came out from Delhi Cloth Mills after finishing his duties at about 2.30 p.m. and was going to Najafgarth Road. After crossing the road, he was proceeding towards Moti Naga on his bicycle when bus No. DHP-101, driven rashly and negligently by resporden No. I, came front the .-'idacf Moti Nagar and after over toking another vehicle, cum to the wrong suit of the road and violently bit the appcllant as a result of which he suffered injuries it was alleged that respondent No. 1 who was driving the bus did not blow any horn The appellant suffered injuries.. extreme mental pain and agony and remained hospitalised for quite a long time. He suffered serious head injuries and injuries on other parts of the body as a result of which he had been rendered permanently disabled for doing any work. Respondent No 1. is the driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the of tendingvehicle was in sured. The said respondents took the plea tha the appellant did not case for the traffic on the road and emerged avery fastspeed he lost his balance and struck against the bus which was station at that time. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3 also denied the allegation made in the petition. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties ; 1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries on 31.5 1977 in the accident caused due to rash and negligent act of driving of Bus No. DHP-101 on the part of respondent No I? 2. Whether the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner? 3. Whether petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary- parties as pleaded by respondent No. 2 ? 4. Whether the petition does not disdose any cause of action and is not maintainable for the reasons contained in preliminary objections No. 2 and 3 in the written statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 respeclivaly ? 5. Whether respondent No. 3 is not liable for the reasons contained in the additional pleas of the written statement ? 6. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from which of the respondents ? 7 Relief.

(3.) The learned Judge rejected the stand of respondent No. 2 that the appellant had emerged all of a sudden or. the road and collided against stationary bus. No evidence in this regard was produced to prove this version. On the contrary, reference is made to the evidence of PW8 Madan La 1. PW9 Ranbir Singh and PW12 Kaniail Singh, who were coming on the road at the time of the accident. It was deposed that the appellant was knocked down by the offending bus which was coming from the opposite direction at a very fast speed and as a result of the same, the appellant sustained injuries. The 1.0. Hukam Chand who appeared as PW15 had visited the spot and prepared a site plan, which dearly indicated that the bus had gone about 12 paces i.e. about 18 feet towards the right hand side of the road and there was skid marks on the road. The appellant .was hit by the said bus. The evidence, which has been produced clearly establishes that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 101 by respondent No. I and not because of any negligence on the part of the appellant. The finding on these issues is, accordingly, affirmed.