- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 458 of 1996 GAJE SINGH V/S BHANWAR SINGH Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MP GOSWAMI for Mr. ANIL BACHAWAT, for the respondent Date of Order : 8.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This is claimant's appeal, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1 Jodhpur, dated 13.2.96, dismissing the claim of the appellant for property damage. The facts of the case are, that according to the claim petition, on 19.10.1991, the driver of the claimant was driving the minibus No.0418 from Mandore to Paota. Near Paota C-Road, the delinquent bus of the corporation, being No.1099, being driven by defendant No.1 Bhanwar Singh, came from behind, and forcefully hit the bus, as a result of which, the city-bus was dragged ahead to the extent of 15 paces, and hit another standing taxi. On account of this impact, the city-bus got damaged in the front side, and - 2 - rear side both. For this accident, an FIR was also lodged. Then details have been given, about the damage suffered. The corporation contested the claim, by pleading that the bus was being driven cautiously, and at a slow speed, while the city-bus driver was driving the city-bus in the mid of the road, and in the mid of the road, suddenly he applied brakes, and stopped the city-bus, on account of which, the accident occurred, for which no negligence can be attributed to the bus driver, while in the FIR, it is mentioned, that for stopping the city-bus he had slowed down the bus, and at that time, it came from behind, and hit. Learned Tribunal decided issue No.1, relating to negligence, against the claimant. It was held, that the claimant has taken shifting stands in the pleading, F.I.R. and evidence, while the stand of the defendant is consistent, inasmuch as, in the claim petition, it is pleaded, that the corporation's bus hit the stationary city-bus, while in the F.I.R. it is alleged that he had slowed down the bus for halting it, and it was at that time that the accident occurred, then in evidence, Chhotu Khan has deposed, that the bus was in motion, as against this, the consistent case of the corporation is, that the city- bus was being driven in the mid of the road, and the driver suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which, the accident occurred. - 3 - Thus it was considered, that the stand of the defence appears to be more reliable, wherein it is contended, that the city-bus driver suddenly stopped the bus, to pick up passengers, and therefore, the accident occurred. Then it has also been observed, that even otherwise also, it is often seen in Jodhpur, that city-bus driver stops the vehicles at any place, on seeing the passenger to be picked up, and thus, it was found, that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver, in causing the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed this finding, and took me through the material on record, including evidence, oral as well as documentary. I have gone through the evidence over again, and find, that of course, it is pleaded in the claim petition, that the roadways bus had hit the city-bus, which was stationary on the left side of the road, with the result, that the bus was dragged ahead despite the applied brakes, and sustained damages, and while in the witness-box, the driver of the city-bus has deposed, that at about 1.30 in the noon, the roadways bus hit from behind, while his city- bus was moving, as a result of impact, the bus was dragged ahead, and hit a taxi. As against this, the driver of the corporation N.A.W.1 has deposed, that the bus was moving - 4 - ahead of him, and the bus driver without giving any signal applied the brakes, and stopped the bus on the road itself, as a result of which, the corporation's bus hit the city- bus from behind. Then in cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion of the city-bus being on the left side of the road, and asserted it to be in the mid of the road. Thus, the two parties have their own versions to depose. However, a look at the site plan, and the site inspection note, certified copies whereof have been produced on record, do show, that the city-bus was moving from north to south, and there is a T-junction, beginning whereof is just at the point, where the bus had hit the city-bus, which is shown by figure 'A'. It is shown therein that the width of the road is 25 paces, and the point 'A' is on the extreme eastern side of the road, being the north eastern corner, which is the correct side of the city-bus, and the city-bus is shown to have been dragged upto point 'B', which is towards further south east of the place of impact, and there are skid marks all through this distance A to B. The point 'B' is towards further east on the side road, constituting T-junction, while the corporation's bus is shown to be lying at point 'D', which is still further ahead in the south, and is practically in the mid of the road. Thus, a proper comprehension of the site plan leaves no manner of doubt, that the story propounded by the Corporation, about the city-bus being moving ahead in the mid of the road, and having suddenly applied the brakes, to - 5 - pick up the passenger, is not at all borne out from the site plan, rather this clearly shows, that the city-bus driver had taken the vehicle on the left side of the road, and either he had stopped it, or might be in the process of stopping, but then, more than sufficient space was left towards the further west, for the corporation bus, to have a very very clear passage, without hitting the city-bus. Thus, in my view, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No.1 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside, and since the learned Tribunal has already assessed the compensation allowable to the claimant, an award is passed for the said amount of Rs.6900/-, to be payable with interest @ 9%, from the date of claim petition, till actual realisation. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/