HASSAN @ MURSHIED HASSAN Vs. NANALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.1.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal'), whereby the application for compensation ('the application') filed by the appellant has been rejected. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : it was claimed by the appellant in the application that on 16.7.1999, when the appellant was riding motor -cycle RJ -30M -9843, the jeep RJ -30C -1882, which was being driven by respondent Nanalal, suddenly applied brakes and despite claimant's efforts to avoid collusion, the motor -cycle collided with the jeep, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/ - as compensation.

(2.) A reply to the application was filed by the owner and driver denying the fact of accident on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep. It was alleged that the motor -cycle was being driven in excessive speed, which resulted in the accident. The Insurance Company also filed reply and submitted that FIR was lodged by the driver of the jeep and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the claimant himself and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. The Tribunal framed five issues and the claimant examined himself and one Dr. Jeevan Lal in support of his claim and Exhibited 10 document including the police papers. No evidence was led by the owner, driver and insurer. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligent driving by the claimant himself and in view of its finding on the said issue dismissed the application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the entire basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal is the site map prepared by the police and the oral evidence led by the claimant, which remained uncontroverted, has been discarded. It was submitted that the said approach of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC 166.

(3.) FROM the averments of the claimant in the application, as noticed above, it is apparent that it was a specific case of the claimant that the jeep was being driven at an excessive speed and the claimant was driving his motor -cycle behind the said jeep and on account of application of sudden brakes, the accident occurred, the said averment necessarily means that if the jeep was being driven at an excessive speed, the claimant was also driving his motor -cycle at an excessive speed, because if he was driving at normal speed, there would have been a wider gap between the two vehicles. Under the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, the responsibility cast on a driver, driving a vehicle to keep safe instance has been indicated as under: -