FAO No. 2713 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2713 of 1996 Date of decision 13.10.2011 Sunil Rao Appellant v. State of Haryana and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the appellant Mr. Ajay Gulati, DAG, Haryana JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This appeal has been filed by Sunil Rao, appellant (injured-claimant) against the Award dated 15.5.1996, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, (for short the Tribunal). Brief facts of the case are that on 1.4.1994, Sunil Rao and Rakesh Kumar were going from Rewari to Jhajjar on a motor-cycle bearing registration NO. HNM-901. The said vehicle was driven by Sunil Rao. Rakesh Kumar was on the pillion seat. It was alleged that when they reached near Village Palhawas, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HNM-1264, driven by Siri Bhagwan, appeared from the opposite side and hit against the motor cycle No. HNM-901. The occupants of the motor cycle fell down and received multiple injuries. They were taken to Civil Hospital, Rewari by Siri Bhagwan and information was sent to the relatives of the injured by Siri Bhagwan. Sunil Rao was referred to Ganga FAO No. 2713 of 1996 2 Ram Hospital, Delhi. Siri Bhagwan informed the police also. Claim petition No. 146 of 1994 was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Sunil Rao. It was stated that at the time of accident, he was 22 years old and was doing the work of a building contractor. His jaw was broken in the accident; he remained admitted in the hospital for 10 days and spent approximately Rs. One lac on his treatment. Upon notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statements denying the accident. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cyclist, who while overtaking a tanker, lost control over his motor cycle and his against the bus coming in the right direction. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Rakesh Kumar and Sunil Rao petitioners suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HNM-1264 driven by respondent No.1 Siri Bhagwan? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and if so from whom?OPP 3. Whether the limitation in the case titled Rakesh Kumar v. Siri Bhagwan and Others is liable to be condoned? OPP 4. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Ld. Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants vide Award dated 15.5.1996. The relevant para Nos. 21,23 to 27 of the Award are reproduced above:- FAO No. 2713 of 1996 3 “21. PW1 Sunil Rao claimant himself in his examination-in- chief categorically stated that in front of him, two tankers were going from Rewari side to Rohtak side. Meaning thereby the witness Sunil Rao PW1 has admitted the version put forth by the respondents in their written statement that tanker was ahead of the motor cyclist and in the process of overtaking the tanker, the motor cyclist lost his control over the motor cycle and dashed with the us of the answering respondents. This fact was also admitted by the other claimant namely Rakesh Kumar who in his examination in chief had admitted that ahead of their motorcycle a tanker was going. It was also admitted case of the parties that the bus was coming from the opposite side (Rohtak side). The existence of this tanker was denied by the witness Sunil Yadav, PW3. In view of the admitted fact that tanker was going ahead of the motor cycle, statement of Sunil Yadav, PW3 cannot be relied upon. 23.A criminal case regarding this accident was also registered against Sunil Rao claimant not against the driver of the bus. Meaning thereby during the police investigation, claimant Sunil Rao was found at fault and not the driver of the bus. PW2 Rakesh Kumar claimant in his cross-examination admitted that Siri Bhagwan driver of the bus took them to the hospital and also informed their relatives which again clearly shows that negligence was on the part of the motor cyclist otherwise, there was no occasion for bus driver to do so, as it is human nature that if someone is at fault, he would always FAO No. 2713 of 1996 4 try to escape from the scene of occurrence/place of accident. 24.Though at the time of exhibit of the photograph as Ex.R3 to R5, objection was taken by the claimants that the photographs had not been proved but the fact that the photographs were taken at the spot by the police stands proved. From the photographs itself, it stands proved that the motor cyclist dashed his motor cycle with the bus, as is clear from photograph R3 to R5 and in such a situation change of circumstances is not possible. The fact that the photographs were taken by the police stands corroborated from the DDR Ex/ R1 wherein there is a a mention that after the spot inspection by the police , photographs were also taken. 25.Coming to the version of the claimants again the motor cycle was going towards Rohtak side and ahead of them was a tanker which was at a distance of 70/80 yards as stated by PW2 Rakesh Kumar, Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No. HMN-1264 was coming from the opposite side. If such was the situation, it is not possible for the bus coming from the opposite side to dash with the motor cycle as ahead of the motor cycle there was a tanker and the accident is only possible in a situation where the motor cyclist tries to over-take the tanker. This is the version of the respondents which stands proved as discussed above leading to the conclusion that it was only the motor cyclist who was rash and negligent in driving the motor cycle which resulted in the accident and not the driver. FAO No. 2713 of 1996 5 26. I would also like to refer that the matter was not reported to the police by the claimant nor their relatives. The claimants have relied upon one application Ex.P2 but this application dated 14.4.1994 was after the report to the police by the bus driver and also after the investigation by the police and as such it is of no help to the claimants case. There is another application dated 15.4.1994 but these applications were made after a long interval of time. The claimants counsel has relied upon Jaimal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1993-2) P.L.R 353 (P & H) (ii) State of Haryana v.Kanshi and Others ( 1991-2) P.L.R. 176 (P & H) and (iii) Brestu Ram v. Anant Ram and Others 1990 ACJ 333 ( HP) but none of the authorities are of any help to the facts of the present case. 27. As a result of my discussion above, I hold that the bus driver Siri Bhagwan, respondent No.1 was neither rash nor negligent in driving of Bus No. HNM- 1264, rather the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Sunil Rao claimant resulting in the accident in which both the claimants sustained injuries. Issue No.1 is, therefore, decided against the claimants.” Aggrieved against the Award of Ld. Tribunal, Sunil Rao, appellant filed this appeal. None has put in appearance for the appellant. Learned DAG submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused by Sunil Rao while trying to over-take the FAO No. 2713 of 1996 6 tanker going ahead of his motor cycle and dashed against the bus coming in its right direction. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record of the Ld. Tribunal. A perusal of the record shows that on 1.4.1994, the appellant while driving motor cycle No. HNM-901 and in order to over-take the tanker going ahead of his motor cycle, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against Bus No. HNM- 1264 coming from Rohtak side. Sunil Rao admitted in his examination in chief that in front of him, two tankers were going from Rewari side to Rohtak. Rakesh Kumar, other injured has admitted that their motor cycle hit against the bus. This witness also admitted the version put forth by the respondents. In the DDR, Ex. R.1 it was clearly mentioned that the motor cyclist was trying to over-take the tanker going ahead of him and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the bus. The Ld. Tribunal observed that the photographs Ex.R3 to R.5 clearly reveal that Bus No. HNM-1264 was towards its extreme left side i.e on its own side and it was only the motor cyclist who came towards wrong side and hit the bus on the extreme left of the bus. Siri Bhagwan, driver of the bus took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Rewari and informed their relatives. He also reported the matter to the police. Had there been any fault on the part of the driver of the bus, he would have escaped from the spot, as is generally done in such like cases. From the above discussion, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the fault of the appellant and the Ld. Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. No ground is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned Award FAO No. 2713 of 1996 7 dated 15.5.1996 passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 13.10.2011 MS