* 1 * F.A. 26.2000 18.3.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2000 Shri. Ananda Vishnu Yadav .......Appellant/Orig.Claimant V/S. Shri. Sampatrao Dari Mane & Ors .......Respondents/Orig.Opponents * * * * * * Mr. Pralhad Paranjpe i/by. Mr. T.S. Ingale, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate for the respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 18 March, 2011. P.C. : 1. This First Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 26th July, 1999 by the Motor Accident Claim, Tribunal, Sangli dismissing the petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident * 2 * F.A. 26.2000 18.3.2011 and respondent no.2 the Insurance Company. 2. On 27th April, 1992 the appellant was driving his moped with the his friend Vilas Yadav as a pillion rider on vita­sangli road. When he reached the place near Karave, a tempo bearing registration number MH­10­A­1718 overtook him and went away. It abrubtly stopped at a distance of about 15 to 20 feet from him. Though the appellant tried his best to control the vehicle and to avoid the impact with the tempo, he could not avoid the accident. After the impact, he was thrown off his moped and sustained injuries to his head and other parts of the body. He sustained fracture injury of shoulder joint. He was admitted to hospital at Karad. The Doctor certified that he had sustained 5% permanent disability relating to the injury of fracture of his shoulder. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence before it, held that the accident occurred solely on account of negligence on the part of the appellant and that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the driver of the tempo. With these findings, it dismissed the claim petition. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that after overtaking the appellant, the tempo had stopped at a distance of * 3 * F.A. 26.2000 18.3.2011 about 12 feet as one of the passengers in the tempo was to alight. The appellant while driving the moped was not attentive to the road but was looking at the boys playing cricket by the side of the road which showed negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the appellant that the tempo had after overtaking him, stopped abruptly without indicating any signal and hence was negligent. It has, further held that even accepting the appellant’s version that the tempo while overtaking the moped had stopped abruptly since the distance between the two vehicles at the relevant time was about 12 feet, the accident could have been averted had the appellant been attentive. The Court noted that the width of the road at the place of the accident was 18 feet. There was no obstacle for the appellant to stop the vehicle when he saw that the tempo had stopped at a distance of 12 feet. The Court has observed that if it was impossible for the appellant to stop his moped within the distance of 10 feet, then there is every reason to believe that he was driving the moped with uncontrollable speed. As per the evidence, there was no other vehicle on the road. In that case, the appellant could also have simply overtaken the vehicle * 4 * F.A. 26.2000 18.3.2011 ahead. It was contended by the appellant that there was an ST Bus coming from the opposite direction, which was not substantiated by the evidence. However, taking that fact also into account, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had three options. If there was ST bus coming from opposite direction, he could have reduced the speed and stopped his moped to avert the impact. The second option was to follow the tempo by keeping a safe distance so that in any eventuality, he could have stopped his moped before colliding with hind portion of the tempo and the third option was to swerve to his left. None of the three options were exercised by the appellant. The Tribunal also held that since the accident had taken place in broad day light, there was no need for the driver of the tempo to give a signal when he had stopped the vehicle at a safe distance of about 12 to 15 feet. I find no infirmity whatsoever with the reasoning given by the Tribunal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]