SATYANARAIN Vs. DHARAMBIR ALIAS HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Satya Narain was taking part in a cycle-race on September 15, 1980 from Hissar to Hansi. A police jeep belonging to the Haryana State respondent No. 2, and driven by Dharambir, respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side. An accident took place between the jeep and the appellant's cycle in which the appellant sustained injuries. He filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 40,000/- from the respondents on account of the injuries suffered by him. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hissar, dismissing the application on the finding that actually the appellant was at fault and had dashed his cycle against the police jeep. Against this order of the Tribunal, dated October 30, 1981, the instant appeal has been filed by Satya Narain.

(2.) The appellant's case in the claim application is that he was going on his left hand side of the road. The police jeep driven rashly and negligently struck against him causing him multiple injuries. Dharambir driver in his written-statement, denying the appellant's allegation, pleaded that the appellant was driving his cycle at a high speed, lost control over it and struck it against the police jeep. The point for determination is as to which of the two version is true.

(3.) Admittedly, the appellant was taking part in a cycle race. In support of his contention he produced two other participants in the race, namely, Raju (PW-4) and Rohtas (PW-5). Both of them stated that the appellant was not at fault and that actually the police jeep, which was being driven rashly and negligently, struck against the appellant's cycle. The testimony of these witnesses must be taken with a pinch of salt. Raju (PW-4) is the brother of the appellant and Rohtas (PW-5) is a friend of Raju. The appellant and these two witnesses had together joined the race. In such circumstances the statements of these witnesses cannot be considered to be independent testimony. Since they were participating in a race, it can be safely assumed that the appellant must be driving the cycle at a fast speed and may not be in total control of the vehicle. However, the statement of the driver, Dharambir (RW-1) indicates that he was also not totally blameless. He deposed that while coming on the jeep from the opposite side he saw 8 or 10 cyclists coming towards him side by side on the road. When he saw this, it was his duty to preferably stop the jeep on the left side of the road or at least slow it down considerably. However, he admitted that when the accident took place he was driving at a speed of 35 K.Ms per hour. He did not even state that he had taken the precaution of swerving the jeep towards the extreme left side of the road.