AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On 17.05.2004, at around 04.30 p.m. Ram Pratap was driving a motor-cycle on which Jaimal Ram and Vinod were sitting on the pillion seat.Â
They were proceeding from Hanumangarh to Rawatsar. A bus RJ-18-P-1730 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was
proceeding in the opposite direction from Rawatsar to Hanumangarh. There was an accident. The driver and the two pillion riders on the motor-
cycle died.
Krishan Kumar (to whom in the transcript the evidence number assigned is AW-8, but over-written as 7, therefore some times being referred to as
AW-7 and some times as AW-8) lodged the FIR by reaching the police station at 07.15 p.m. The FIR is Exhibit-1. He stated in the FIR that he
was a passenger in the bus which was being driven very fast by the driver and inspite of the passengers cautioning him he paid no heed. At 04.30
p.m. he saw a motor-cycle coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the bus hit the motor-cycle and as a result three people were seriously
injured. Site plan Exhibit-3, bearing Krishan Kumar’s signature was prepared on the same day by the Investigating Officer and relevant would it
be to highlight that the bus is shown as stationary off the metalled road on the left kachca part of the road and the motor-cycle on the extreme left of
the road if one is driving from Rawatsar towards Hanumangarh. Meaning thereby, the motor-cycle, which was proceeding from Hanumangarh to
Rawatsar, had come on the wrong side. Not only the motor-cycle had come on the wrong side but to such an extent that the driver of the bus, to
avoid the accident, took the bus on to the kachha road but before the bus went off the metalled road the motorcycle hit the bus.
I note said fact for the reason while holding the driver of the bus responsible the learned Judge, MACT has simply referred to the fact that there is
a site plan and that the testimony of Krishan Kumar and Murti Devi establishes that the driver of the bus was driving the same negligently.
Three claim petitions were filed. The first by the wife and mother of Vinod. The second by the wife, minor children and mother of Jaimal Ram
and the third by the wife and children as also the mother of driver Ram Pratap. Murti Devi is the wife of Ram Pratap. She claims to be a
passenger in the bus.Â
The testimony of Murti Devi of being an eye-witness of the accident is highly tainted for the reason her presence is nowhere recorded in the police
records nor at the hospital where her husband and two others died.
Be that as it may, the site plan to which I have referred to hereinabove has a story to tell. The story has been noted by me above. The same
shows that the driver of the motor-cycle was rash and negligent. The driver of the bus took all precautions to avoid the collision, so much so that the
driver had to take the bus of the metalled part on to the kachha segment of the road.
Since the Tribunal has held the driver of the bus responsibleand prima facie the site plan establishes to the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondents i.e. the claimants urged that as per the testimony of Krishan Kumar, the bus was parked on the kachha portion of the road after the police
came because if the bus was not removed from the metalled part of the road a traffic jam would have resulted.
Indeed, Krishan Kumar has said so, but it needs to be highlighted that he has admitted that the site plan was prepared in his presence. Assuming
that when the site plan was prepared he was a little negligent when the Investigating Officer recorded that after the accident the bus was found
stationed on the kachha portion of the road, but point ‘A’ and ‘B’ which are on the extreme left of the road if one proceeds from
Rawatsar to Hanumangarh, marked at his instance, are where the motor-cycle hit the bus and ultimately was found on the road. The site plan is
corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses of the claimants themselves and thus the testimony of Krishan Kumar that the driver of the bus was
driving rashly and negligently is disproved.
It is a case where entire negligence was by the driver of the motor-cycle and thus no liability can be fastened upon the appellant.
No other point arises for consideration.
The appeals are allowed. Impugned award dated 24.07.2008 fixing liability on the appellant is set aside.
I note that the sum awarded was directed to be deposited in the appeals before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the claimants were
permitted to 50% thereof. The appellant would be entitled to receive back the remaining 50% lying in deposit with the Tribunal together with
interest which has accrued thereon. The appellant would be entitled to restitution of the balance 50% received by the claimants as per the award.