C NARAYANAN Vs. MADRAS STATE PALM GUR SAMMELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. (Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore in a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 23-9-1967 he was travelling in lorry MSV 8251, belonging to the first respondent, which was proceeding to Madurai. At about 4 a. m. on 249-1967, when the lorry was proceeding near Vandipalayam on the Grand Trunk road, it hit against a stationary lorry parked on the left side of the road, resulting in grievous injury to the eyes of the appellant and injury to his head resulting in fracture of the skull. The appellant was treated in the Government Hospital, cuddalore, and later in the Stanley Hospital, Madras. He claimed that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,000 for treatment and Rs. 35,000 by way of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of employment and for medical expenses, past and future.

(2.) THE respondents denied liability on the ground that the appellant had no right to travel in the lorry which was only a goods vehicle, not authorised to carry passengers for hire or reward. As the injuries were caused in the course of unauthorised travel, the respondents disclaimed all liability.

(3.) THE Tribunal framed three issues, and the first of them related to the question, whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry MSV 8251. On this point there was only the evidence of the injured-appellant. According to him while the lorry was standing on the left side of the road. At that time the lorry in which he was travelling was also proceeding on the left side of the road. When it neared the stationary lorry it was going at a high speed. The appellant cried, but the lorry went and dashed against the stationary lorry. As a result of the impact the appellant received injuries for which he was treated in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, and later at the Stanley Hospital, madras. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination, nor was the driver of the lorry or any other witness examined to prove that the dashing of the lorry against the stationary lorry was not due to any rash or negligent driving of the lorry in which the appellant was travelling. Prima facie, when a moving lorry hits against a stationary lorry, negligence can be presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. It may be that the driver of the lorry might have a proper defence on the ground that there was no rear light in the stationary lorry or that it had been stationed at such a position that the driver of the lorry could not have seen it. But no such defence has been raised in this case and in the absence of such rebutting evidence we have to proceed on the basis that the running of the lorry into the stationary lorry was due to the negligence of the driver. On this point we differ from the Tribunal which found that negligence had not been established, as the only witness examined was the victim.