Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 451 (HP)

Rajan Sharma v. Ravinder Singh

2016-04-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 20th October, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.36 of 2006, titled Rajan Sharma vs. Ravinder Singh and others, whereby the claim petition was dismissed, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Claimant invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.17.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. the driver of the bus (respondent No.1) and the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (respondents No.2 and 3) resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether petitioner Rajan Sharma sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a bus HP-68-0105 by Ravinder Singh respondent No.1 on May 10, 2006? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was himself responsible for causing an accident. If so to what effect? OPR 1 to 3 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 1 & 3. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 2 to 3 6. Relief.” 5. In order to prove his claim, the claimant examined PW-1 Dr.(Mrs.) Indu Bhardwaj, PW-2 HC Dev Raj, PW-3 Dr. Ashish Lekhi, PW-4 Suresh Kumar, PW-5 Naveen Sharma and the claimant himself appeared as PW-6. Respondent driver appeared in the witness box as RW-1. No other evidence was led by the respondents. In addition, the claimant and the respondents placed on record documents the gist of which has been given in the ‘list of exhibits’ appended at the end of the impugned award. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently argued that the claimant has proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that the driver, namely, Ravinder Singh had driven the bus bearing No.HP-68-0105 rashly and negligently on 10th May, 2006 at about 9.45 p.m. at village Marwari, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. and caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries and remained under treatment for the same. 7. 7. Respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the bus has filed the reply, wherein, in paragraphs 5 & 6, in reply to paragraphs 8 to 10 on merits, has specifically pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. It is apt to reproduce the said paragraphs hereunder: “5. That the contents of Para no.8 & 9 of the petition are admitted. However the replying respondent was in no way responsible for the accident as the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent divining of the scooter by the petitioner himself. 6. That the contents of Para no.10 of the petition are incorrect hence denied. In fact it was the petitioner who was driving the scooter and was driving it rashly and negligent and the petitioner approached the main road from Bhadarkali side without caring for the other traffic on the road and struck the scooter on the back bumper of the bus being driven by the replying respondent.” 8. Respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. the Himachal Road Transport Corporation have also filed the reply and in paragraph 25, they have specifically stated that the claimant had caused the accident while driving the scooter rashly and negligently. 9. The claimant has not been able to prove, by leading evidence, that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus i.e. respondent No.1. It is the case of the claimant himself that the rear portion of the bus hit the scooter, meaning thereby that the bus was ahead of the scooter. It is not the case of the claimant that the rear portion of the bus hit the scooter while overtaking the scooter or the bus was in reverse motion and hit the scooter. Thus, how the bus hit the scooter and caused the accident is not forthcoming. 10. It is also worthwhile to mention here that no FIR was lodged in regard to the accident and no case was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, how the bus hit the scooter and caused the accident is not forthcoming. 10. It is also worthwhile to mention here that no FIR was lodged in regard to the accident and no case was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. On the contrary, the brother of the claimant and respondent No.4 had entered into a compromise Ext.R-1 with the driver of the bus, which, apparently, establishes that the parties had settled the issue, consequent to which the Head Constable PW-2 Dev Raj had entered report No.21, Ext.PW-2/A, in the daily diary, Police Post Daulatpur and closed the matter. Had the bus driver driven the bus rashly and negligently, what was the need for the brother of the claimant to settle the issue and in case the police had made the closure report wrongly, why the claimant had not challenged the report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 11. There is no iota of evidence in order to return findings, prima facie, that the bus driver Ravinder Singh had driven the bus rashly and negligently. On the contrary, a perusal of the compromise Ext.R-1 does disclose that the claimant, while driving the scooter, had himself struck with the rear side of the bus. 12. The Tribunal, after discussing the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence, in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the impugned award, has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant was not able to prove that the driver of the bus had driven the bus rashly and negligently and had caused the accident, which findings require no interference by this Court. 13. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the claimant and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld.