PADINHARA KOTTAYIL RAMLA BEEVI Vs. N. KRISTUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in M.A.C. No. 223 of 1982 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri is the appellant, Petitioner, a 14 year old girl, represented by her mother as guardian, filed the petition alleging that on 4-3-1982 at about 6 p.m. the car belonging to the 2nd respondent, the Kerala State Electricity Board, it hit the petitioner from behind and caused serious injury to her. The petitioner alleged that the offending vehicle was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner was a pedestrian and was proceeding to south through the eastern side of the road. The car was being driven from north to south. The case of the petitioner is that the car hit all on a sudden and the accident caused fracture on the femur of the left leg of the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, where she was under treatment for a period of six months. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

(2.) THE first and second respondent filed a joint written statement denying all the allegations in the petition. They alleged that while the vehicle was moving very slowly the driver felt that something had hit on the car from behind and he immediately stopped the car and found that a girl had fallen on the ground and her thigh had hit against a stone on the road. The first respondent understood that the injured was driven playfully by someone and she had jumped without seeing the car and hit herself against the backside of the car and sustained injury. The first respondent paid Rs. 500/- out of sheer compasion and rendered other assistance. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was pedestrian walking through the eastern side of the road, The petitioner's definite case is that the car came in a rash and negligent manner and hit her from behind. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has committed a serious flaw in appreciating the evidence in this case. According to the tribunal if the car was coming from behind, it would not have hit on the left leg of the petitioner. This finding is palpably wrong. If a pedestrian was walking, the vehicle could either hit on the right or left leg. It depends on the posture of the body of the victim's at the time of collision. If while walking, the victim's left leg was behind the body, naturally the vehicle would hit only on the left leg. Moreover, whenever the offending vehicle comes all on a sudden, there would be an involuntary reflex action and the body would twitch and move suddenly to save from the calamity. It may not be possible to predict as to what portion of the moving body would come into contact with the vehicle. To find out the absence of negligence of the driver in this manner would be highly improper and is an approach divorced from the reality of the situation. The case set up by the first respondent is highly artificial. The first respondent had even gone to the extent of stating that the petitioner was playfully driven by somebody and hit against a stone and caused fracture on her leg. From the nature of the injury it is highly improbable to accept this contention. It is also important to note that the first respondent immediately stopped the car and on seeing the condition of the victim paid Rs. 500/- and left the place. This is a case where the petitioner Was hit by the offending car from behind and it is clear that the car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Even according to the respondent the car was driven through a crowded area. Then the first respondent should have taken extra caution and care in driving the vehicle, and there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accident happened while the petitioner attempted to cross the road. Not even a suggestion has been made to the petitioner in this regard while she was examined. The evidence of PW 3, an eye witness of the occurrence, clearly shows that the car came in a rash and negligent manner and this witness ran away from the road, least he should also be hit by the car. The finding of the Tribunal is palpably wrong and we hold that the accident Occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.