LINGESHVARAN DURGAIYA GAUD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LINGESHVARAN Gaud is employed as a driver by Lijjat Papad concern and his duties require him to drive their vehicle to transport staff from place to place. On 28-9-1970 Gaud as usual brought the workers to Dadar Railway Station, Western Railway and parked his vehicle opposite the general railways stores near the eastern "foot path. The occupants got down from the rear left door and as Gaud felt that the door was not properly locked by the alighting workmen he got down from the driver's seat and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut. While doing so Gaud noticed from his side view mirror that a government vehicle was coming from behind. The vehicle brushed passed him, dashed against his right foot and shoulder as well as the body of his vehicle. Gaud was treated for fracture for which he had to incur medical expenses and preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay which dismissed the claim on the ground that there was no negligence. Alternatively the learned Member of the Tribunal has quantified damages of Rs. 3021/- should the negligence be proved.

(2.) THE drivers of the two vehicles have examined themselves. According to Ramchandra Chavan, driver of the police van, he was carrying about 50 police personnel in the van and had noticed the vehicle of the applicant parked near the foot path. Chavan also saw that the driver of the parked vehicle has got down from his seat and had closed the door. He passed by the vehicle and heard people saying that his vehicle has met with an accident. Chavan got down from his vehicle and took the applicant Gaud to K.E.M. hospital.

(3.) ON going through the evidence I find that scenario can be reconstructed only on hypothesis that Chavan the driver of the police van misjudged the clearance between his vehicle and the one of Lijjat Papad and brushed the right portion of the later vehicle in a bid to pass by it. It was not a case of a collusion or a dash which would have surely been apparent on the body of the vehicle. Chavan left a very narrow margin for the driver Gaud to negotiate. He managed to avoid being hit by the front-bumper of the police van but did not have enough space to dodge being hit by the rear portion of the police van though not seriously. Some protruding portion of the rear of the police van must have been responsible for the hit which was misjudged by Chavan. Chavan did not see that rear portion of his van had hit Gaud and understandably so because his eyes would be riveted to the front portion of the road and was only told about it by the passers-by.