Dismissed

Puna Ram v. Union of India and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2014CMA/503/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence apportioning 75% liability to the appellant and 25% to the military truck driver, and approved the assessed damage amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal's award and apportionment of liability are approved.

Puna Ram Vs Union of India and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

Poona Ram vs. Union of India & anr.

¶4

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 503/2000 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.4.2000 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 191/94 (756/95).

¶5

Date of Judgment : 12.12.2014

¶6

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶7

Mr. M.S. Soni for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, for the Union of India.

¶8

BY THE COURT:

¶9

This civil misc. appeal has been filed by appellant- claimant Poona Ram against the award dated 27.4.2000 passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 191/94(756/95) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur.

¶10

It is not disputed that in the intervening night between 8.12.1993 and 9.12.1993, appellant's truck No. RSN 2757 collided with military Tatra truck No. 86-E-7455-E near Basni crossing ( Tiraha) and in this accident driver of military truck had been killed on the spot and both the vehicles were also damaged . The police had filed charge-sheet against Ratan Lal@ Satya Narayan, who was driving the appellant's truck. It is admitted position that the appellant or his driver did not lodge any FIR regarding the

¶11

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 503/2000 2

¶12

accident. It is also admitted position that about eleven military trucks were going in a cavalcade one after another and they were stand still at Basni crossing.

¶13

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed 75% negligence of the driver of appellant's truck and 25% negligence of the driver of the military truck because being head on collision it was a case of contributory negligence. The appellant had submitted bills and vouchers to the tune of Rs. 99,000/- for repair of his truck, but the Tribunal assessed that total damage of appellant's truck was only about Rs. 75,000/- and so looking to 75% negligence of the appellant's truck driver, he was awarded only Rs.18,750/- as damages. It was also mentioned in the award that the reliable bills/vouchers submitted by the appellants were only to the tune of Rs.35,800/- and Ex.19,Ex.20 and Ex.21 were not relied by the Tribunal because they were only quotations and not actual receipts of expenditure incurred.

¶14

Now, in appeal it has been argued that appellant's driver was not negligent at all and his truck collided with the military truck only because of the absolute negligence of the military truck driver. In the alternative, it has been argued by the appellant that at the most, appellant's driver must be held guilty of only to the extent of 50% negligence.

¶15

On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the appellant's truck was not insured and so appellant

¶16

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 503/2000 3

¶17

has not filed the claim against the Insurance Company and it wants to put the whole expenditure of repair of the truck on the respondents, which is not justifiable. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that when the military truck was in a stationery position then its driver cannot be held contributory negligent and as per the respondents, 100% negligence was that of appellant's driver.

¶18

In this regard, I have perused the site plan and I have also perused the statement of PW-1 Charan Das. Charan Das was one of the drivers of eleven trucks of the cavalcade. He has specifically stated that the accident occurred in the middle of the Basni crossing near the railway gate. He says that site plan Ex.4 is not correctly mentioning the position of military truck.

¶19

The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in the site plan, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on a number of factors, like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident must have been caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative

¶20

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 503/2000 4

¶21

evidence, the court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.

¶22

Principles of apprtionment of liability in accident claims where contributory negligence has been pleaded, have been discussed by the Apex Court in the following cases also:-

¶23

(1) Jiju Kuruvila & ors.Kunjujamma Mohan & ors., 2013(1) TCR

¶24

¶25

(2) Meera Devi & anr. vs. H.R.T.C. & ors. , 2014(1) TCR 639

¶26

PW-2 Ratan Lal was the driver of appellant's truck. He says that accident occurred only because of the negligence of the driver of the military truck and he states that 100% negligence was that of driver of military truck. I have gone through the statement of Ratan Lal from beginning to end. Had Ratan Lal been not negligent, then he should have lodged an FIR with the Police Station but he has not lodged any FIR as admitted by him. Further, he was driving an uninsured truck. Apparently, he was driving his vehicle negligently causing accident with standing truck of military. The Tribunal has rightly assessed that 75% negligence was that of appellant's truck driver and 25% was that of respondent's truck driver.

¶27

PW-3 Shyam Singh also supports the apportionment of the liability as assessed by the Tribunal and so the award of the Tribunal deserves approval by this Court also.

¶28

In the circumstances of the case, apportionment of liability as determined by the Tribunal deserves to be approved which is hereby

¶29

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 503/2000 5

¶30

approved. Further, the quantum of the damages assessed by the Tribunal also needs no interference. Quotation Forms Ex.19,Ex.20 and Ex.21 have rightly been discarded by the Tribunal while calculating damages for cogent reasons which also need not be repeated here.

¶31

In the result, this civil misc. appeal deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur within seven days.

¶32

( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

¶33

mlt

Puna Ram v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puna Ram v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Om Prakash Saini Vs Shri Swaroop Govind Pareek

Smt Savitri Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Roop Barayan Saini Vs Nagar Vikas Nyas Alwar and Anr.

Dev Kran Vs Smt Kamla Devi and Ors.

Jugendra Lal Vs Smt Santosh Devi and Others