Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Arora vs Pritam Singh And Anr. on 11 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)ACC131, 2006ACJ1163
Author: Deepak Gupta
Bench: Deepak Gupta
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant whose claim petition has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala vide award dated 5.9.1994.
2. The facts giving rise for disposal of the present appeal are that according to the claimant-petitioner on 29.5.1992 he was travelling from Kangra to Palampur by a scooter No. PB 08-9810. He claims that he was driving the scooter and was alone on the scooter. At a place known as 61 Miles, a bus bearing registration No. HP 39-201 belonging to H.R.T.C., respondent No. 2 and driven by Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1, is alleged to have come from the opposite direction. He further alleged that the said bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and it struck against the scooter as a result of which he was thrown on the ground. The appellant-claimant claims that he sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of his right leg. He stated that his right leg was amputated at the mid-thigh level resulting in 80 per cent permanent disability.
3. The respondents resisted the claim petition and they have stated that scooter was not hit at all by the bus. As per the respondents, there were three persons riding on the scooter and the scooter was driven by one Mohinder Singh and the claimant was in fact a pillion rider. As per version of the respondents, there was no impact between the bus and the scooter. All the three persons riding the scooter were in state of intoxication. The scooter skidded and fell down resulting in injuries to the three persons. The respondent No. 1 as a humanitarian gesture had taken the three injured to the hospital where they were got admitted.
4. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries in the accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1? OPP (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and if so, from whom and to what extent? OP Parties (3) Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR (4) Relief.
5. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence and going through the same in detail has come to the conclusion that the claimant-petitioner has failed to prove that the accident had occurred because of collision with the bus. In fact, according to the Tribunal the accident was result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the scooter driver. The claim petition, therefore, was dismissed.
6. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal below on the issue of negligence are totally incorrect and are liable to be set aside. He submits that the claimant-petitioner has proved that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. He also submits that even if the case of the appellant is taken at its worst, both the parties should be held equally liable for the accident.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the matter and gone through the entire record. The relevant evidence with regard to the issue of negligence is considered in detail to decide this question.
8. The claimant while appearing as his own witness as PW 3 has supported the version given in his claim petition. He also states that he was taken to Zonal Hospital at Dharamshala by the bus driver. According to him, he made no report to the police as he was in the hospital and the F.I.R. was lodged by some other person whose name he does not know. He has denied the suggestion that three persons were riding the scooter at the time of the accident. He also denied the suggestion that in fact it was Mohinder Singh who was driving the scooter at the relevant time. He states that he is the owner of the scooter and the same is registered in his name. He denied the suggestion that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident and the driver of the scooter was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. According to him the police never inquired from him about the accident.
9. Netter Kumar, PW 4, claims himself to be a passenger in the bus. According to him the bus struck with the scooter. However, his version is highly doubtful. He also denied the suggestion that there were three persons on the scooter and they were drunk. Dr. Ajay Pathania, PW 5, who has also appeared as RW 1 in this case, states that the claimant was examined by him on 29.5.1992 at 6.55 p.m. He states that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of examination. He also states that he also examined two persons, namely, Mohinder Singh and Satish Kumar who were also involved in the same accident. These persons were also under the influence of alcohol. He has proved the MLCs with regard to the three persons, Exhs. PW 5A, RW 1A and RW 1B, in which it is mentioned that the aforesaid were the injured persons who had consumed alcohol.
10. RW 2 is the driver of the bus. According to him, the bus never struck against the scooter and the scooter driver was heavily drunk. The scooter was being driven at a high speed and that the scooter had fallen on its own due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. He states that as a humanitarian gesture he had taken the injured to hospital. He had also lodged the F.I.R., Exh. PW 2A, in which he has given the same version and specifically named Mohinder Singh as the driver of the scooter.
11. Chandu Ram, RW 3, is a shopkeeper whose shop is near the site of the accident. According to him also the scooter and the bus did not touch each other. He also stated that there were three persons on scooter who were injured and were taken to the hospital by the bus driver.
12. Santosh Kumar, RW 4, is Criminal Ahlmad in the Court of SDJM, Palampur, who has proved that a Criminal Case No. 222-II/92 under Sections 279, 337, 338, Indian Penal Code and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act is pending against Mohinder Singh in the Court of SDJM, Palampur. He also states that one Ajit Singh had got the scooter released on superdari showing himself to be owner of the scooter.
13. Jugal Kishore, RW 6, is the Deputy Divisional Manager of the respondent H.R.T.C. who states that he was on checking duty on 29.5.1992 and when he reached near Dhoran, he found that 3 persons were lying injured on the kacha portion of the road with their scooter. The bus of the respondent H.R.T.C. had stopped there. According to him all the three persons were in drunken position. He states that he had asked the driver to take the injured to the hospital.
14. Prakash Chand, RW 7, at the relevant time was the Investigating Officer of Police Station, Palampur who had investigated the case against Mohinder Singh. According to him, as per the investigation, three persons were riding the scooter. All of them had consumed liquor at Kangra and thereafter they moved towards Palampur. Mohinder Singh, son of Sukh Raj was driving the scooter at the relevant time. As per his investigation when the scooter reached near 61 Miles, a bus of H.R.T.C. was coming from the opposite direction. The scooter was being driven in a high speed. On seeing the scooter coming in a high speed, the bus driver stopped the bus on one side of the road. Due to the high speed, the scooterist got puzzled and the scooter skidded towards its left side and fell down. All the three persons sustained injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. He states that no fault was found on the part of the driver of the bus.
15. A perusal of the entire evidence clearly shows that the claimant is not at all telling the truth. He has tried to hide the true facts of the case from the court. In his claim petition as well as the statement under oath, he has stated that he was driving the scooter alone and had not consumed alcohol and that the bus struck against his scooter.
16. From the evidence it is clear that there were 3 persons on the scooter. This is apparent from the medical evidence and the statement of the Investigation Officer. No explanation is coming forth on behalf of the claimant-appellant as to why he hid this fact.
17. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, the learned Counsel could not give any explanation and on the basis of the evidence he could not disprove the fact that there were three persons who were riding the scooter. Similarly, it is proved that Mohinder Singh was driving the scooter. There is sufficient evidence in this behalf. The bus driver had lodged the F.I.R. immediately after the accident in which Mohinder Singh is named. In case Mohinder Singh was not driving the scooter or was not at the spot why he would have been named in the F.I.R. This fact also falsifies the case of the claimant. Mohinder Singh had not been produced in evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He was not party to the proceedings by claimant who tried to build up a case that he was alone driving the scooter and there was nobody else on the scooter. The doctor has clearly stated that all the three injured had been brought to him at the same time and that he had examined them at a gap of about 15 minutes and they were all alleged to have been involved in the same accident. All the other witnesses have also stated that Mohinder Singh was driving the scooter.
18. The claimant claims that he is the owner of the scooter but no relevant record had been produced in this regard. On the other hand, from the evidence, it is apparent that one Ajit Singh claiming to be owner of the scooter had got it released on superdari. If the claimant was the owner why would somebody else got the scooter released on superdari. This also shows that the claimant is not telling the truth.
19. Any person who comes to court is expected to come with clean hands and should make a statement which is honest and truthful. Any person who tries to mislead the court or wilfully gives false evidence, is not entitled to any relief and his statement cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding the case.
20. In the present case, the claimant's statement is doubtful and he has made false averments. His statement with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the respondents have given cogent and reliable evidence to show that the scooter fell down due to the fault of the scooter driver and the bus driver was not at all at fault. In fact the bus did not hit the scooter at all.
21. This court in Balbinder Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways 1982 ACJ (Supp) 401 (HP), has held in para 13 as under:
In a case of this type where a person who is in the full know of the facts and circumstances leading to the accident resulting in injuries on his person intentionally withholds the truth from the court, it would be legitimate for the court to draw all adverse inferences against him. In these circumstances, the court would be justified in concluding that the accident was the result of the claimant's own doing....
22. The scooter is meant actually for two persons, i.e., driver and the pillion rider. The scooter is not expected to be ridden by three persons. When three persons who are under the influence of alcohol go on a scooter ride, it is clear that they are asking for a trouble to say the least.
23. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:
128. Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders.--(1) No driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures.
(2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in Sub-section (1), the Central Government may, prescribe other safety measures for the drivers of two-wheeled motor cycles and pillion riders thereon.
24. Driving under the influence of drugs/ alcohol is an offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 185 of the Act reads as follows:
185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.--Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,--
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or (b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.
25. This by itself may not be a sufficient ground to hold that the claimant or the other scooter driver was negligent. However, when this is coupled with the fact that claimant has tried to hide material facts especially with regard to driving of the scooter, the number of persons on the scooter, the manner in which the accident occurred, etc., it can safely be presumed that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver who along with pillion riders was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time.
26. The claimant who has obviously violated Sections 128 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has told blatant lies in court cannot be granted any relief. The claimant-appellant has miserably failed to prove that the bus of the respondents was in any manner involved in the accident.
27. Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000.