SALEEM Vs. HARIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS claimant's appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the award dated 10th July, 1980, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in claim case No. 4 of 1977, whereby the appellant's petition for claim award of damages has been rejected. 1-A. According to the claimant-appellant while he was going on foot from his house to the nearby shop and was crossing the road, the respondent No. 2 Shanker came from behind on scooter No. CPR 2829, belonging to the respondent No. 1 Harimal and knocked down the appellant. The claimant was thrown on the ground and sustained fracture of his right leg besides abrasion and swelling in the left leg. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition claiming Rs. 10,000/-as damages. The respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company, with which the said scooter was insured. The respondents contested the claim petition by contending that the accident took place entirely due to the negligence of the claimant himself. The learned Judge of the tribunal found favour with the defence taken by the respondents and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition against which this appeal has been directed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant assailed the award rejecting claim petition by contending that the claimant-appellant was not negligent and it was the Scooter driver who was negligent; in causing the accident.

(3.) THE claimant Saleem Ahmad examined himself as (AW 1) as well as one Rafique (AW 2). The accident had occured on the road in village Mowa on 23-10-1976, at about 6 p.m. According to the evidence it had not become dark when the accident took place. It is also clear from the evidence of the above named two witnesses that the road was 4-5 steps wide that is to say 10-12 ft. There was also about 8-10 ft. wide Kachcha Road on both sides of the metal road on which the accident took place. The scooter driven by the respondent No. 2. came from behind the claimant. The claimant-appellant had hardly moved two paces on the metal road from left to right to cross the road when the respondent No. 2 came from behind and knocked down the appellant. According to the evidence there was no other traffic on the road and the road was also wide enough together with its Kachchi siding on both and there being no intervening object, the visibility was clear. In these circumstances, if the scooter driver had taken least care the impact would have been avoided and the scooter would have been taken safely from either side of the claimant-appellant. But, it appears that the respondent No. 2 was in great speed on his scooter and he did not try to avoid the impact with the claimant which resulted into collision causing fracture of the appellant's leg. The respondent No. 2, was, therefore, clearly negligent in driving the scooter on a road unmindful of the other users of the road.