AJAY KUMAR Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of compensation for injury suffered by respondent no.1 in a motor vehicle accident has been impugned on the ground that the evidence does not support the liability for the same fixed on the appellant. Referring to the Detailed Accident Report (DAR), the Site Plan of the accident and the evidence filed by the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the first instance, the version of the injured was that he had parked his motorcycle on the side of the road where his friend, who was a pillion rider, had stayed back and the claimant had crossed over to the other side of the road for some work, but on the way back he was hit by the offending motor cycle.

(2.) The accident happened about two years ago on 01.06.2015 at 9.40 in the morning during the peak traffic rush. The DAR records that: i) the offending vehicle was not over speeding; ii) that the victim was taken to the hospital by his friend Mr. Rajiv Kr. Jha; iii) the brief description of the accident is: the victim was crossing the road when the offending vehicle hit him on the road; iv) that the accident happened at a place where there was no zebra crossing; v) that the offending vehicle was not being driven dangerously or at excessive speed i.e. it was within permissible speed limits and as a corollary, in the correct lane; and vi) that the vehicle was not poorly maintained. As to whether the offending vehicle was not observing traffic rules, or was parked on the wrong side or at a prohibited place, the DAR records in the negative. The column for recording the name of witness of the accident, the DAR does not record anything.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent states that mere fact that the offending vehicle was on the road without insurance is sufficient proof that it was not being driven as per the traffic rules. However, there is nothing on record to show that mere violation of a traffic rule linked the offending vehicle to the accident and resultant injury.