1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1629/2000 Ramesh Kumar vs. Haryana State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Dated : 01.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the appellant. Mr. S.C. Purohit, for the respondent no.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and Award dated 26th June, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant-appellant. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is:- That on 3rd August, 1992 at 1:30 p.m., the appellant was going to Railway Station, Jaipur on Scooter No. RJ-14- 5M-3360. When he reached at Narayan Singh Circle, one Bus No. HR-20A-9506 of Haryana State Road Transport Corporation was already standing because of Red light signal. The appellant also stopped his scooter at the Red light signal towards right side of Haryana Roadways Bus. It is alleged that on Green signal, the driver of Bus speedily took a turn to the right side and having caused an accident dashed his scooter resulting into a compound fracture of his left leg. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the learned Tribunal dismissed 2 the claim petition on the ground that the Bus driver was not negligent in his driving. He has further canvassed that even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the motor vehicle but accident happens, then also the owner of the vehicle is liable for damages to the person who suffered on account of such accident. He has cited one judgment of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & ors. vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors. Reported in Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 2001, in support thereof. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has contended that the claimant has to prove negligence of driver, which is prime consideration and without proving the negligence, the liability cannot be fastened on the owner. He has cited one judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. Sandeep Dhar & ors. of Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported in 2009(1) TAC 290, in support thereof. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that Roadways Bus in question is found to have been standing already on Narayan Singh Circle, owing to Red light. The appellant was on his scooter and also stopped his two wheeler in the right side of the Bus because of Red light. It is alleged that the driver of the Bus speedily turned towards right and caused the accident resulting into compound fracture of his left leg. It is further noticed that albiet, the appellant got medical treatment in Sawai Maan Singh Hospital but he did not lodge the First Information Report with police. PW-2 Kheman Das is said to be an eye witness of this case but he also did not lodge the report. It is also found that one Birju Singh, ASI of police station 3 reached at the site of accident and found the Bus and scooter there, which were involved in accident. The appellant did not lodge the report with the police nor he wanted any action to be taken against the driver of the Bus by the police. That was the reason, Birju Singh, ASI did not register the case. It is alleged that the Bus speedily turned towards right direction. This statement of the appellant does not appeal to the reason, as it is impossible for a Bus driver to take a sharp and speedy turn when the Bus was earlier standing in a static condition. Undeniably, the Bus or any vehicle first starts in the first gear and thereafter, with a view to increase the speed of the vehicle, gears are changed. From no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Bus driver, when the Bus was on a zero speed, must have taken a speedy turn towards right. The judgments cited by both the parties are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. It is not proved from the material on record, as to how did the Roadways Bus dashed the appellant. It is also not proved, as to whether the Bus dashed the scooter or hit the appellant. It is also not proved as to whether the left leg of the appellant came under the front wheel or under the rear wheel of the Bus. The statements as also the whole story of accident is vague and devoid of particulars. The statements are omnibus in nature. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the negligence of the Bus driver was not proved. Learned Tribunal has critically analyzed the statements of the witnesses in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at a right finding that neither the accident was proved nor the negligence of Bus driver was proved. I am in consonance with the finding of 4 the learned Tribunal. The impugned judgment is just and cogent and calls for no interference and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. For these reasons, the appeal being bereft of merits, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 12