ARJUNDOSS Vs. P JANAKIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Arjundoss has preferred this appeal against the award of a sum of Rs. 2, 400 as compensation by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, to one Sri P. Janakiram for the injuries sustained by the latter in an accident which took place at about 10 a.m. on June 27, 1965, in Telegraph Abbay Naidu Lane, Madras. Sri Janakiram was walking along the said lane, east to west and a private car, Standard-10, which belongs to the second respondent herein, Mrs. Kailash Rani, and which was then driven by the appellant herein hit and injured the said Janakiram. The appellant had borrowed the car from the second respondent for about half an hour for the purpose of taking his family to Mambalam for a marriage. The second respondent's husband, Roshanlal, was sitting by the side of the appellant in the front seat.

(2.) THE first question which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the appellant. Sri Janakiram as P.W. 3 has sworn that as some logs of wood had been stored on the pavement, he was walking along the road from east to west close to the pavement, and that the car which came behind him hit him on his left thigh. Thereupon he fell down and got jammed between the pavement and the backside tyre of the car and his left ankle got injured thereby. The car was driven rashly and negligently and the appellant went away. P.W. 3, though examined by the police, was not examined in the criminal court as the appellant pleaded "guilty" to the charge.

(3.) THE appellant's present version that P.W. 3 slipped and fell down, and that the car came into contact with P.W. 3 only after P.W. 3 fell down, had not been thought of when the counter-statement was filed. It appears to me probable that, on seeing the people walking along the road, the appellant sounded the horn and that, as the parties split into two groups and attempted to escape from being run over by the car, which was coming from behind, the appellant, who had admitted of only a six months driving experience to his credit, got panicky and knocked down P.W. 3 who was attempting to climb on to the platform hearing the horn. I am not impressed with the appellant's story that P.W. 3 fell down because he had trampled on some foecal matter and that he was not responsible because of the unforeseen contingency of P.W. 3 slipping and falling down. His evidence is that he had noticed the parties even at a distance of 20 feet and it is obvious that he could have avoided the accident if he had excercised normal care and diligence. I am clear that it was his rash and negligent driving that caused the accident. His conduct in not reporting the matter to the police after the accident and his subsequent admission of guilt cannot be left out of account in assessing his responsibility for the accident.The second point raised by the learned counsel relates to the quantum of compensation awarded in this case.