IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL A.O. No. 524 of 2006 Raj Kumar … Appellant Vs The Managing Director Uttaranchal Transport Corporation & another … Respondents Sri B.S. Bisht holding brief of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 34 of 2005, Raj Kumar Vs The Managing Director, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.01.2003 at about 07:45 p.m., the appellant – Raj Kumar was going towards Chhatri Chauraha on his motorcycle. When he reached near the turn, a vehicle No. UA03/0168 came from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant causing thereby very severe injuries to him. The claimant sustained very serious injuries and he was immediately taken to District Hospital, Philibhit. Thereafter he was shifted to the nursing home of the orthopedic surgeon and was admitted there on 05.01.2003 and on examination, it was found that there was a compound fracture in his right leg. The claimant remained in Gauchely Hospital w.e.f. 05.01.2003 to 19.01.2003. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to his home and remained totally confined to bed for 15 days. According to the claim petition, he consulted the O.P.D. of 2 Ganga Charan Hospital, Bareilly for six months and he incurred at least Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment. The claimant is a young boy and started his career in the recent years. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 13,34,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Uttaranchal Road Corporation contested the claim petition by filing its written statement denying the accident. It has alleged that the driver of the bus stopped the same few yards away from the Chhatri Chauraha and few passengers were getting down from the bus. During meantime, a motorcycle, which was being driven by its driver under the intoxication of wine and hit the standing bus. He sustained severe injuries on his person and he was admitted in the District Hospital by the same bus. It has further pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its driver and there has been no negligence of the driver of the bus. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal concerned. The Insurance Company also denied the accident but pleaded for contributory negligence. It has also pleaded that the claimant has made a false and fabricated story in the claim petition. First Information Report was lodged against the bus and after investigation; the chargesheet was filed against the driver of the bus. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- 3 1. Whether on 04.01.2003 at about 07:45 p.m., bus No. UA03/0168 which was being driven by its driver very rashly, negligently and fastly, hit the motorcycle on Chhatri Chauraha, Pillibhit, injured the driver of the motorcycle severally? 2. Whether there has been the negligent on the part of the claimant, in driving his motorcycle fastly, rashly and negligently and whether he also contributes for the commission of the accident? 3. To what relief and from whom, if any, is the claimant entitled? 6. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2006. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Sri B.S. Bisht holding brief of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 9. From the perusal of the record, it has come to my notice to the claimant/appellant – Raj Kumar himself admitted this fact that he had consumed half quarter of wine before accident. He has also mentioned the quantity and alleged that he has consumed 80 ml Brandi, but he was not under the influence of brandi and was under fit state of mind. The 4 Tribunal on the basis of the statement of the opposite party No. 1 (D.W.1) and D.W.-2 a passenger and eyewitness who corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. The statement and the medical report of the claimant have corroborated the version of D.W.1 and D.W.2 that he was driving the vehicle under intoxication of liquor. Therefore, I am in total agreement with the finding that on the date of accident, the bus was standing on the left side of the road and the motorcycle collided with the standing bus and the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 10. As I have already discussed above, that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the claimant/appellant, therefore, in no way roadways bus can be held responsible for the accident and certainly, the claimant cannot claim any compensation from the opposite party No. 1. So far as the compensation from the opposite party No. 2 is concerned, it is clear from the evidence available on record that the owner of the vehicle Raj Kumar himself was driving the vehicle. He was not under the special coverage of insurance because no such evidence was produced by him before the Tribunal in this regard. No tort feature can claim compensation for his own wrong. On the same analogy, the owner of the motorcycle – Raj Kumar, the claimant/appellant cannot claim compensation against the insurance company unless and until there is no special insurance coverage because he cannot be treated as the third party for the insurance company. 5 11. In view of the above, discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal concerned. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle himself, therefore, he cannot claim compensation for his own negligence. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal appears to be justified. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.08.2008 ASWAL