K GOPALAKRISHNAN MINOR Vs. SANKARA NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the morning of 16-12-1963 at about 9-15 A. M. there was an accident at the junction of St. Mary's Road and C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Road, Madras, in which the lorry MSY 3463 owned by M/s. T. U. C. S. Ltd. , and driven by one sankaranarayanan (R. W. 1) and the Scooter MSY 4456 owned and driven by M. K. Subramanian (R. W. 2) were involved. One K. Gopalakrishnan (P. W. 10) son of krishnan (P. W. 11) who was travelling on the pillion of the scooter at the time of the accident sustained a lacerated injury on his left leg 10" x 51/2" with fracture of both bones as the right rear wheel of the lorry ran over his left led, after he fell down as a result of both the vehicles colliding on their sides, and this finally resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The pillion rider gopalakrishnan claimed Rs. 3,60,210 as compensation in O. P. No. 60 of 1964 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) impleading R. W. 1. Sankaranarayanan the driver of the lorry M/s. T. U. C. S. Limited the owner of the lorry the Co-operative Fire General Insurance society Ltd. , with whom the lorry was insured. R. W. 2, M. K. Subramanian, the driver and owner of the scooter, one A. K. Anand, the original owner of the scooter and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, the insurer of the scooter as respondents 1 to 6 respectively. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rupees 57. 865-37 P and cost of Rs. 100 to the claimant Gopalakrishnan only as against R. W. 2, M. K. Subramanian, the driver of the scooter. The pillion rider gopalakrishnan has preferred C. M. A. No 358 of 1964 on the ground that he should have been awarded compensation as claimed by him against all the parties. R. W. 2, M. K. Subramanian, the driver of the scooter, has preferred C. M. A. No. 398 of 1964 against the award made against him. It is convenient to refer to the array of parties as described in O. P. No. 60 of 1964 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal.

(2.) THE sketch Ex. P-1 prepared by P. W. 7 Vadivelu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic investigation, who went to the spot at 10-00 A. M. on the date of the accident is useful to understand the evidence in this case. According to the driver of the lorry, the sketch is incorrect. P. W. 7 deposed that the driver of the scooter as well the driver of the lorry showed him the same place, as marked in the sketch as the point of impact of the two sketch as the point of impact of the two vehicles. But the driver of the lorry stated that he did not show to the police the place where his lorry came into contact with the scooter. It is difficult to accept his statement as against that of the Sub Inspector of Police. It is not possible to accept the evidence of the lorry driver that when he returned to the scene of occurrence, after going to the Police station, the lorry had been pushed forward.

(3.) THE lorry was laden with 40 bags of sugar and 13 bags of wheat and it was proceeding from east to west along St. Mary's Road at the time of the occurrence. The driver of the lorry deposed that he drove the vehicle at a speed of 15 to 30 kilometers which would work out approximately to 9 to 18 miles per hour. P. W. 8 atulraj, one of the witnesses to the occurrence deposed that the lorry came at a great speed. But the evidence of the Sub-Inspector shows that the lorry that had travelled 24 feed after the place of impact as pointed out to him by the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the scooter and the blood mark noticed by him. Rule 307 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules required the efficiency of the brakes of the motor vehicles to be such that when laden, it should stop on application of brakes within a distance of 45 feet when travelling at 20 miles per hour and within 25 feet if travelling at 15 miles per hour. Thus, if the lorry had the required efficiency which could normally be presumed as the lorry driver would otherwise have been prosecuted for driving the vehicle with inefficient brakes, the speed of the lorry at the time of the accident could have been only about 15 miles per hour. If the lorry had very efficient brakes it could have proceeded at same higher speed. The scooter driven by R. W. 2 was proceeding from north to South along C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Road at the time of the accident. The pillion rider P. W. 10 gopalakrishnan deposed that the fourth respondent drove the scooter at 10 to 15 miles per hour. P. W. 9 Venkataramani one of the witnesses to the occurrence, stated that the scooter driver slowed down the vehicle on approaching the junction of the roads. R. W. 2, M. K. Subramanian the driver of the scooter, went to the extent of stating that he went in the first gear for about two furlongs from his house to the place of accident as there were lots of pot holes and the road was under repair and there were 3 or 4 intersections to be crossed. But in the criminal court he has stated that in C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Road he picked up speed and was going at 25 miles per hour and that on approaching the junction of the roads, where the accident took place, he reduced the speed to 10 to 15 miles and came to first gear. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of the scooter driver that he proceeded in the first gear. But even the driver of the lorry did not state that the scooter was driven rashly. It is quite possible that the driver of the scooter drove the vehicle at 25 miles per hour before coming to the junction of the roads. But there is evidence to show that he slowed down the vehicle at the junction and he could not therefore, have driven the vehicle at a speed of more than 15 miles or 15 to 20 miles per hour. It could not be said that either the lorry or the scooter was driven rashly.