RAMSOMER HABAI YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, a hand -cart puller, was knocked down or hit from the back side by a police break -down van jeep on 11th March, 1968, at about 5.30 a. m. while he was pushing the hand -cart laden with vegetables alongwith another handcart puller from the rear side and pulled from the front by a third person on its journey from Byculla Vegetable Market towards J. J. Hospital soon after crossing the Byculla Bridge. The Appellant became unconscious immediately and was removed to the J. J. Hospital. He received medical treatment thrice at the J. J. Hospital and once at the Civil Hospital, Lucknow. The medical examination conducted by Dr. B. R. Nayan on 21st February, 1972 showed that the Appellant had suffered 75% permanent disability. Prior to the Appellant knowing the percentage of his disability, he had filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bombay on 13th April, 1968, claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -from the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) THE State of Maharashtra by its written statement admitted that the breakdown van jeep was being driven by its driver Shinde while on duty. The other occupant of the van was More a car cleaner. The accident took place at about 5. a.m. on 11.3.1968 when driver Shinde was driving the said vehicle along Sir J. J. Road in the direction of north to south, that is from Byculla Bridge side to J. J. Hospital side, at a moderate speed. When the break -down van was almost opposite the Berkley House, a hand -cart heavily loaded with vegetables was proceeding in the same direction in the centre of the road and the said hand -cart was being pulled in front by one Rambehari Bacha and was being pushed from the rear left side by the Appellant and on the rear right side by one Maruty. As the said driver Shinde started to overtake the said hand -cart at a moderate speed, the said handcart suddenly turned to the right, with the result that the right middle portion of the said hand -cart came in the line of the said break -down van and it dashed against the middle portion of the hand -cart and due to the impact, the hand -cart was pushed ahead, i.e. it turned to its right side and there was a crack in the middle of the right side wooden bar of the hand -cart above the right wheel, and the front left mudguard and the front left spring portion of the break -down van were damaged. The driver Shinde had applied brakes immediately on seeing the hand -cart suddenly turning to the right, but in spite of due diligence and care on his part, the break -down van could not be halted before the impact and it stopped immediately on the spot. As a result of the said impact, the Appellant and Rambehari Bacha sustained injuries. The cleaner More dashed against the windscreen and sustained an abrasion on his right cheek on account of applying the brakes with full force. The injured were taken to the J. J. Hospital where Rambehari and More were treated and allowed to go and the Appellant was admitted. On receipt of information, the police visited the place of impact, traced a witness and drew up a panchanama of the scene of the incident. After due investigation, the police classified the incident as an accident and no case was registered against the driver Shinde.

(3.) SHRI Kurien, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the accident had not occurred on account of the negligence of the driver Shinde, and that the amount worked out by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side. The Tribunal totally disregarded the question of interest which it ought to have considered under Section 110 -CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.