BAL MUKAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 4.1.2006 at about 4.30 P.M., petitioner Bal Mukand son of Devi Chand, was going to his house on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. HR- 29/N-7357. As soon as, he reached the crossing of Neemka Mor at Ballabgarh, in the meantime, he noticed one motorcycle and one scooter carrying three persons each, making lot of noise, came from the side of Ballabgarh. Seeing the said vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioner stopped his motorcycle on the kacha portion towards extreme left side of the road. The scooter bearing registration No. HR-29/J-4249 (for short "the offending scooter), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came on wrong side. Its driver could not control and it struck against the legs of the petitioner, due to which, he suffered serious injuries and a fracture on his right femur of right leg. He was immediately removed in an injured condition, was admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad and was medico legally examined, vide MLR (Annexure P-1). On the next day, the statement of the petitioner was recorded in the hospital, on the basis of which, a criminal case, vide FIR (Annexure P-2) was registered against the driver of the offending scooter in this context.

(2.) The petitioner claimed that during the investigation, it revealed that the offending scooter was being driven by Satpal son of Chander Pal, while Raj Kumar son of Bhim Sain and one other person were pillion riders on it. Consequently, the police submitted the challan/final police report against Satpal, driver of the scooter for rash and negligent manner and causing injury to the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a student of B.Com, sustained compound fracture over the right femur of his right leg and has led permanent disability for life, besides other injuries. He remained admitted for almost 8 days in the hospital. He is still undergoing the treatment. As such, he has also filed a claim petition (Annexure P-3) for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor accident in question, invoking the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity "the M.V. Act").

(3.) According to the petitioner that after six months from the date of accident, Raj Kumar, cousin of accused Satpal, filed a criminal complaint against him, in order to pressurize him to withdraw the criminal and claim cases against his real cousin Satpal, who was driving the offending scooter. After more than one year of the filing of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned to face trial under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the trial Court, by virtue of order dated 5.10.2007 (Annexure P-5).