RANJIT SINGH Vs. BAGARIAN SHOES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, at the instance of the dissatisfied claimants due to the inadequacy of the sum awarded. On the other hand, there are Cross -Objections No. 11 -CII of the owner of the offending car to absolve them of the liability altogether. The insurance company, though a Respondent in these two matters, has chosen to remain non -aggressive.

(2.) THE accident, which is the subject matter of this claim, occurred on an intersection of equi -dimensional roads in Sector 35 -A, Chandigarh at about 6.30 p.m. on June 10, 1979. The deceased Jatinder Singh lived in a house close -by to the scene of the accident and had while riding his motor cycle CHG 21 come out of his house to proceed on the straight road. At the intersection, however, Ambassador car No. CH 8025 came out from his left side, struck against him almost in the middle, whereby the deceased by the impact was thrown off and fell on the corner of the intersection near an electric pole. The motor cycle, however, was pushed forward by momentum of the car and became stationary touching the car near the pavement when the car was almost 3/4th on the pavement across the intersection in the direction in which it was proceeding. At the point where the car ultimately stood the distance was about 50 feet. Jagjit Singh PW 7, Harbant Kaur PW 8 and Mehma Singh PW 9 are said to have witnessed the occurrence. Harbant Kaur PW 8 was the sister of the deceased and according to her she removed the deceased to the hospital. Beforehand the occupants of the car, being its driver and suggestedly two other men and two ladies leaving the car there, vanished from the scene. The car was found to be owned by Messrs Bagarian Shoes Limited, one of whose Directors is Ashok Singh Respondent and it undeniably was comprehensively insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Respondent. The liability, if any, undeniably is thus on the insurance company. In due course the matter was reported to the police, but somehow it never went before the criminal court as the police took the view that Ashok Singh at the time of the accident was not driving the car and who else was the driver was not known. The claimants being the parents of the deceased, however, moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/ -.

(3.) IT is significant to note that the finding of the Tribunal that car No. CH 8025 was the offending vehicle has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that it was owned by the owner -Respondents and their liability is to be taken care of by the insurance company. It is, even obvious otherwise, for the offending vehicle was found standing after the accident by the investigating police. There are on record photographs obtained at that time being exhibits P -l to P -7, which speak for themselves, invoking the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Additionally there is site plan Exh. P -l2 supported by oral evidence in that regard. It is plain from the site plan Exh. P -12 and photographs that the impact between the two vehicles was in the middle of the intersection for there was no roundabout constructed in it or even manned otherwise. The pool of blood at that place established the impact point. From that impact point, the deceased was found thrown at a tangent in a corner of the intersection near an electric pole on the road pavement. The car was found parked 3/4th on the road pavement and approximately 1/4th on the road in the direction in which it was headed at a distance of about 50 feet from the place of impact. The motor cycle was lying in front of it in close contact with the car, entangled with the right front tyre and causing a uniform dent on practically whole of the front of the car. These facts since they speak for themselves, disclose that the motorcyclist had almost come in front of the car, if not wholly in front of it, when the accident took place.