UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAGANDEEP JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Mumbai, dated 23. 10. 2001, in Application No. 2490 of 1995, for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the Act" ). The respondent had claimed Rs. 15, 00, 000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the Appellants are liable to pay compensation of a total sum of Rs. 11, 00, 000/-, inclusive of Rs. 25, 000/- to be paid under section 140 of the Act, to the claimant i. e. Respondent Gagandeep, with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of the application till its realization.

(2.) THE Respondent filed the aforementioned claim for compensation with respect to all the injuries he suffered in an accident with the vehicle belonging to the indian Navy (Naval Truck No. 92 D 92875 MR 251), on 20th May, 1995. According to the Respondent, the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, as a result of which he came under the vehicle and lost his right leg below the knee. From the evidence it appears that the accident took place as follows:

(3.) THE appellant contends that the accident took place because the respondent was trying to overtake the Mini bus, without care for oncoming traffic, and hence is himself negligent. The Respondent has denied the suggestion. The driver of the offending vehicle, who was in the Indian Navy's employment at the time, entered the witness box, before the Tribunal, and deposed that the Respondent was trying to overtake the Mini bus from the driver side of the bus and came under one of the rear right wheels of the offending truck. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the offending truck was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, on the narrow road. The Tribunal rightly referred to the brake skid marks of the truck which were measured to be about 24 feet long, as per the panchanama. Clearly, it can be inferred from such a long skid mark that the heavy truck was being driven at a high speed. More so, the fact it was being driven rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed can be inferred from the fact that the respondent was dragged for a distance of about 25 to 30 feet, while caught in the wheel of the truck, before it stopped. The Tribunal has, in our opinion, rightly concluded that had the driver of the offending truck not been driving at such an excessive speed, he could have immediately stopped the offending vehicle, on seeing the Respondent come towards him from the opposite direction, thereby avoiding the accident. The fact that the driver was not attentive while driving the truck, is apparent from his deposition before the Tribunal, where he said that he did not see the Respondent, until he had fallen from his bicycle. The driver further deposed that he saw the Respondent only in the rear view mirror, after the Respondent's leg was already stuck under the right rear wheel. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the offending truck cannot be said to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner and, in fact, the driver stopped the vehicle and took the boy to the hospital. We cannot accept the contention that if the driver took the boy to the hospital, it leads to the inference that the driver was not negligent in driving the vehicle. In fact, it is the duty of every citizen to help a motor accident victim, more so when one is the cause of the accident, or is involved in that particular accident; as was pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parmanand Katara v. Union of india [air 1989 SC 2039]. The Act itself, in section 137, requires the driver, or others involved in the accident to immediately assist the victim and report the matter to the police, and failure to do so is punishable under section 187 of the Act. For deciding the negligence of the driver, we must have regard to the other evidence, which helps us to establish liability. We are hence of the view that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, based on the skid marks and inattentiveness of the driver, which show that he was driving rashly at an excessive speed on the narrow road.