Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has cross examined the P.W.1 to PW.5 at length. The PW.3 to 5 have deposed about disabilities of petitioner and the treatment taken by them. Their evidence is not pertaining to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. For consideration of the negligence of the driver, the evidence of PW.1 and 2 is to be looked into. In the cross- examination, PW.1 has admitted that at the time of accident he was crossing the road at the zebra cross. Further admitted that as per the Sketch which he has produced, there is no mention about the zebra cross at the place of accident. But he specifically says that there was Zebra cross at the place of accident. He has denied the other suggestions of learned counsel for respondent No.2.

20. PW.2 in her cross-examination she specifically denies that there was head on collision between two cars. She further says that since there was green signal to them, they were taking 'U' turn and the driver of the offending car though he had red signal, he jumped the red signal and hit their car.

21. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 in his Written Arguments stated that the petitioner in MVC 1894/2022 was crossing road without following traffic rules where there was no zebra crossing, due to negligent act of the petitioner the accident took place, hence, no actionable negligence can be attributed against the driver of offending Car. A careful perusal of the police documents, they show that while the petitioner in MVC 1894/2022 was crossing the road, the driver of the offending car drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by jumping the signal and hit against the petitioner in MVC 1894/2020 who was crossing the road where Zebra crossing was there and also dashed against the car of petitioner in MVC 1895/2022, which was taking 'U' turn. The Mahazar and sketch, do not show about zebra cross at the spot. But, the accident spot is shown as it is two way main road having three lanes and service road and there was traffic signal point at the spot. Hence, it could be presumed that where traffic signal will be provided, there will be provision for crossing the pedestrian. Even in the cross examination of PW.1 clearly denies that there was no zebra cross in the road. No doubt that pedestrian has to cross the road meant for pedestrian cross. In this case, as discussed above, the PW.1 has specifically denies that there was no zebra cross at the place of accident. The Respondents have not produced any documents to show that there was no pedestrian crossing at the spot of accident. Photograph of the accident spot has not been produced by either of these parties. Though the Respondent No.2 has examined the IO as RW.1 no question was posed about the Zebra cross at the spot. Thus, this Tribunal opines that there was pedestrian crossing at the accident spot and the petitioner in MVC 1894/2022 was crossing the road where pedestrians were permitted to cross the road.

22. The oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record, clearly show that while the petitioner in MVC 1894/2022 was crossing the road on Zebra lines and petitioner in MVC 1895/2022 was proceeding in car bearing No.KA-03-NF-3729 as inmate, by that time the driver of the offending car bearing No.KA-04-AB-5898 drove the car in rash and negligent manner though he had red signal by violating the traffic rules and dashed against the petitioner in MVC 1894/2022 and car of petitioner in MVC 1895/2022. Due to said accident the petitioners in both the cases sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in MVC.No.1894/2022 and MVC No.1895/2022 in the "Affirmative".