MEGJIBHAI KHIMJI VIRA Vs. CHATURBHAI TALJABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the morning of 8th May 1972 at about 6.00 A.M. Gordhanbhai Tarjabhai was driving his bullock cart laden with cotton along National Highway No.8 towards Vasad Cross roads with Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai resting on top of the cotton bales. A speeding Ambassador car No. M.B.C. 7144 driven by one Chandrashekhar K. Nair came from behind and dashed against this bullock cart which was proceeding at a leisurely pace towards Vasad cross roads. As a result of this violent impact from behind the cart driver Gordhanbhai was killed instantaneously. Maheshbhai who was sitting on the top of the cotton was thrown out and sustained injuries. One bullock died on the spot and the other was injured. The cart was reduced to a shambles. The brother and the nephews of the deceased filed a claim application No. 78 of 1972 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kaira at Nadiad claiming a sum of Rs. 20 0 by way of compensation on the ground that the accident was the direct result of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car in question. The Claims Tribunal however awarded a sum of Rs. 9 0 by way of compensation from the owner and the insurer of the motor car with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application and proportionate costs. The owner and the insurer being aggrieved by this award made by the Claims Tribunal have preferred the present appeal. The claimants have also filed cross objections claiming an additional amount of Rs. 6 0 on the ground that the Claims Tribunal had failed to award just compensation to them.

(2.) The owner and the Insurance Co. of the motor car involved in the accident filed separate written statements contending that the driver of the vehicle got dazzled by the light of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction and as there was no reflector affixed to the cart he could not notice the cart ahead of him and as a result ran into that vehicle. The fact that the car driver Chandrashekhar K. Nair was in the employ of the first opponent Meghjibhai Khimji Vira is not in dispute. The Opponents however deny their liability to pay compensation for the accident to the claimants.

(3.) The first question which arises in this appeal is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was the direct result of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is well founded. Mr. Majmudar contended that the burden of establishing negligence lay heavily on the claimants and the claimants had failed to discharge the burden inasmuch as they had not led any evidence except the evidence of the sole interested witness Maheshbhai Ranchodbhhai P.W.2 who was himself injured in the accident. His contention was that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the uncorroborated interested testimony of this witness Maheshbhai to hold that the accident was due to the negligence of the car driver. The accident occurred on the morning of 8th May 1972 at about 6.00 A.M. on National Highway No. 8 at a short distance from the Vasad cross roads. The bullock cart in question was proceeding towards the north and was about 65 ft. south of the Kilometer stone No. 89/2 when this car came from behind and dashed against it. The panchnama showing the physical condition of the place of accident was prepared by the police at about 10-30 A-M. and it shows that the width of the tar road was 22 ft. with 6 ft. wide shoulders on either side. The damaged cart was lying about 28 ft. to the north from the scene of occurrence. The car found at a distance of about 55 ft. to the north with the right side front head light bumper mudguard and wheel plate badly damaged. It is significant to note that the damage is exclusively to the right front side of the vehicle. We have it from the evidence of Maheshbhai P.W. 2 that the car came from behind and tried to overtake the bullock cart from the wrong side i.e. from its left and in the process the collision took place. This part of the evidence of Maheshbhai is corroborated by the fact that the right front side of the motor car is badly damaged. Even if we turn to the written statements filed on behalf of the owner and the Insurance Company the explanation given is that the car driver was dazzled by the front lights of the on coming vehicle and as a result ran into the bullock cart. There is therefore no reason why we should doubt the testimony of Maheshbhai P.W. 2 on which the Tribunal has placed reliance. The driver of the car has not entered the witness box to give his account of the accident. In fact the opponents have not examined any witness to controvert the evidence of Maheshbhai. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Majmudar that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the motor car is not well founded. We therefore confirm that finding.