SECRETARY COMMUNICATION MINISTRY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF POST AND TELEGRAPH NEW DELHI Vs. RAMRAO ALIAS RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (Dr. S. S. Wagholikar) made an Award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 68 of 1986, in favour of the respondent No. 1 Ramrao s/o Baliram Koltake. The Award is for payment of a sum of Rs. 42,000/ -. This Award is challenged by the original respondents (appellants here ). At the same time, the award is also challenged by the successful claimants/petitioner Ramrao on the ground that it needs to be increased and modified accordingly; he has filed cross objections in that behalf.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 Ramrao is a green grocer. On 11-11-1985 at about 5. 30 a. m. when the traffic on the road was admittedly very light, he was riding his bicycle on the Netaji Subash Road, in an east to west direction, towards the Cotton Market, on a way to Fule Market for purchase of vegetables and sale thereof also there, as a petty vegetable vendor. Near a place called the Dadaji Dhuniwale Ashram, the respondent No. 1 Ramrao claimed that the postal van MTG 333 driven by the appellant No. 4 Harishchandra Swamy came from behind him and knocked him down, the van speed away after knocking him down and he fell down from his bicycle, having sustained injuries on head and elsewhere. He claimed to have become unconscious and was then removed to the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur where he regained consciousness only after six days. As per particulars given in the petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Ramrao claimed that he had got multiple injuries and suffered from some permanent ones along with other disabilities due to bidden and apparently unobservable injuries. He had lost the capacity to work physically. The injuries, as he further detailed in paragraph 22 (d) of his plaint, which he sustained were serious ones on the head, shoulder, hands and legs. His eye sight had also been greatly affected due to the injury; he was unable to see clearly. He had also been required to take treatment at the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur as also the Mental Hospital, Nagpur for considerably long period, was still undergoing such treatment from a private medical practitioner. He had spent large amounts on such private medical treatment. In view of the injuries caused and the permanent disability which resulted, he had entirely lost the capacity to work and maintain his family. His minimum monthly income was Rs. 400/- and accordingly, claiming life expectancy for 20 more years i. e. upto 60 years, he claimed Rs. 96,000/- as the 20 years purchase of the permanent disability, Rs. 5,000/- for bodily pain and mental shock and Rs. 1,000/- for miscellaneous expenses in all Rs. 1,02,000/ -.

(3.) IN their joint written statement (Exh. 15), the original respondents (appellant here) denied that Ramrao had been, in the first instance, knocked down by the postal van No. MTG 3633 which was admittedly being driven by the original respondent No. 4 Harishchandra Swamy, also admittedly in the east to west direction. The facts accordingly to the respondents were that a S. T. bus had been going ahead of the postal van MTG 3633 and one person who, it was later learnt, was the original petitioner Ramrao, had been going on bicycle. The S. T. has overtook him; as soon as overtaking was complete, this cyclist Ramrao abruptly turned to his right to cross the road for going towards the Fule Market. The bicyclist turned very abruptly without giving any signal whatsoever. At this juncture the distance between the S. T. bus and the van was a very short one. The van had been going at a very moderate speed of 30-40 kilometres per hour. However, even in that speed it was not possible to bring the vehicle to a total and abrupt hault and, therefore, in order to avoid hitting the petitioner bicyclist, the driver Harishchandra Swamy swerved his motor van towards right, almost to his right hand side of the road. But, unfortunately at that very time another bicyclist came along Netaji Subhash Road in the opposite, i. e. west to east direction. Having seen the van swerving on the right side of the road, this bicyclist presumably took his bicycle to the left hand side and in the process came in violent contact with the petitioner bicyclist Ramrao and both of them dashed against each other and also then against the respondent No. 4s postal van which was at time about to stop. The occurrence having taken place in this manner, it was submitted that the accident in question had taken place owing to the petitioner Ramraos own mistake, as a result of his failure to observe the traffic rules. It was, therefore, denied that the respondent No. 4 was responsible for having collided, on his own and himself with the petitioner bicyclist who was the other way altogether. There was, therefore, no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 4 driver Harishcandra. It was also denied that he had been driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, in either a rash or in any was a negligent manner.