MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Appeal No. 193 of 1980 Sureshkumar v. State of M.P. and Anr. and Misc. Appeal No. 228 of 1980 State of M.P. v. Sureshkumar and Anr. as all these appeals arise out of the common award dated 19.4.1980 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case Nos. 32 of 1978 and 36 of 1978.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals briefly stated are as follows:

(3.) THE short question which arises in these appeals is whether the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep and whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that Sureshkumar was also guilty of contributory negligence. The claimants examined themselves and AW 6 Rajendra Prasad Sharma and AW 7 Gopalkrishna Sharma who had witnessed the accident. The non -Applicants examined the driver of the jeep Dulesingh as DW 1 and DW 2 Navneet Tugnawat. The claimants Mohanlal and Sureshkumar deposed that when they were going on the scooter, the jeep came from the opposite direction and dashed against them. AW 6 Rajendra Prasad and AW 7 Gopalkrishna have supported them. Gopalkrishna also deposed that on the traffic point the jeep took a turn on the wrong side and dashed against the scooter which was being driven by Sureshkumar. As against this evidence the driver of the jeep deposed that the scooter was taking a turn from the wrong side and therefore, he stopped the jeep and the scooter dashed against the standing jeep. DW 2 Navneet also deposed that the driver applied the brakes of the jeep and the scooter which took a turn on the wrong side dashed against the jeep. We are of the opinion that the testimony of the claimants as supported by Gopalkrishna and Rajendra Prasad is more reliable. Gopalkrishna is an independent witness. Nothing has been brought in his cross -examination to show that he has any interest in the claimants. It is difficult to accept the testimony of the driver of the jeep that he stopped the jeep and the scooter dashed against the standing jeep. We are of the opinion that had the driver of the jeep been careful, the accident would not have been caused. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in holding Sureshkumar guilty of contributory negligence. The jeep on that day was engaged in making arrangement for the programmes of the Chief Minister of the State who had come to Mandsaur on the occasion of Republic day. It seems that the driver of the jeep was not careful in driving the jeep as he must have been in a hurry to reach the venue of the programme of the Chief Minister. The jeep had dashed against the scooter which was coming from the opposite direction and had the driver been careful, the accident would not have been caused. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the driver of the jeep was solely responsible for the accident and it was caused on account of his negligence in driving the jeep. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the contrary finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the contributory negligence of Sureshkumar deserves to be set aside.