Dismissed

Bansi and Anr. v. Vikas

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2012FAO/7213/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal Order, the court dismissed the motorcyclist's appeal against compensation awarded to a pillion rider survivor. Upholding the compensation tribunal's finding that the driver's manner of dashing was negligent despite an initial claimant statement regarding a cow.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bansi and Anr. Vs Vikas — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

FAO No.7213 of 2010(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.7213 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2012

Bansi and another

... Appellants

Versus

Vikas

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate for Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶12

¶13

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶14

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶15

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶16

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶17

The appeal is by the respondent, who was a motorcyclist, challenging the award of compensation made in favour of a claimant, who suffered injuries in an accident when he was a pillion rider. The contention in appeal by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal had wrongly cast liability for the accident on him, although in the original DDR lodged by the claimant himself after a period of 3 days from the date of accident, it was recited that the motorcyclist had dashed against a tree when a cow was crossing the road in an attempt to save the cow and that they came to harm by dashing against a tree. According to the appellant, the accident was not on account of any negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and that was what was stated before the police and recorded in the

¶18

[ 2 ]

¶19

FAO No.7213 of 2010(O&M)

¶20

DDR. This statement was resiled later and the claimant was attempting to blame the respondent-motorcyclist for the accident.

¶21

When the claimant had originally stated that there had been no negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and that the accident was inevitable on account of a cow crossing the road and later he resiled from such a statement, I have no reason to suspect that he was speaking any untruth before the Court. A person who so drives his motorcycle that would result in dashing against a tree when a cow was crossing, cannot be an act of careful driving. By the very nature of things, a motorcyclist dashing against a tree when a cow was crossing the road, ought to be stated to be guilty of negligent driving. If the claimant was making a statement initially that there was no negligence on the part of the motorcyclist but later he made a different statement to sustain his claim, it was perfectly justified that he made a re-assessment of his own judgment of what caused the accident. If the Tribunal also held that there had been a negligent driving of the respondent, I will not find a reason to re-appraise the same as though a statement made in the DDR must be taken as the last word. I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

¶22

29^th August, 2012 Rajan

¶23

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Bansi and Anr. v. Vikas

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bansi and Anr. v. Vikas

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Jatinder Singh Vs Mukesh Mehra

Jatinder Singh Vs Mukesh Mehra

Jatinder Singh Vs Mukesh Mehra

M/S Jhandu Lal Vs Shri Murari Lal

Thuru Ram and and. Vs Sat Pal

Rameshwar Dass Vs State of Haryana & Ors.