Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12-A. Exh. 55 and Exh. 59 are the photographs and the sketch map of the scene of the accident. I have perused the photographs at Exh. 55. The photographs are proved by witness No. 4 on behalf of the claimant Ramkumar Shrigiri. Exh. 59 is proved by Trimbak Kulkarni, Head Constable, Police Station, Mukhed. The evidence of these two witnesses has gone unchallenged. Therefore, the fact is established that the photographs which was taken immediately after the accident shows the condition of the car. The condition of the car from the said photographs, it is clear that the said car is completely smashed from the right side i.e. driver's side. The front portion of the car right from the engine to the rear wheel is completely smashed. Exh. 59 is sketch map. From Exh. 59 it is clear that Nanded Basmat road runs east-west. Undisputedly the car was proceeding from Nanded to Basmat and the truck was proceeding to Nanded. By the sketch it is clear that the truck halted on Kacha road, having its front side facing east. While after the impact the position of the car is north-south and the front portion of the car is towards north. That Exh. 59 also throws light on the condition of the truck. The said sketch shows that diesel tank and airtank is completely broken. The bonnet cover of the car is just lying behind the rear wheel of the truck. Exh. 59 also shows that extensive damage is caused to the car which shows that the bumper of the car in front of the engine is broken, right side head lamp is also broken. Bonnet and radiator is also broken. Therefore, considering this situation which is described in Exh. 59 and considering the only evidence of Karnelsingh the driver I have to consider about the fact of negligence, whether the negligence by the car driver or by the truck driver. I may say that the front wheels of the truck are separated from the body, that means the first impact was on the front wheel of the truck and the front side of the truck headlight and the mudguard, diesel tank and airtank, damaged and the piece of bonnet of ambassador car was found lying near rear wheel of the truck.

13. The learned Member of the Tribunal has appreciated these two documents i.e. Exh. 59 and the photographs along with the evidence of D.W. No. 1. D.W. No. 1 the only person who has deposed in this case. The learned Member of the Tribunal has considered this evidence and recorded the following findings:--

"He invited my attention to the contents of the said Panchanama Exh. 59. Reliance is tried to be placed on the contents of the said Panchanama Exh. 59 that the truck was actually standing on the eastern side of the road, that it was on the kaccha strip of the road beyond the tar road, and that therefore, the truck definitely was not either on the wrong side or in the centre of the road, and therefore, when the accident took place the car must necessarily have been on its wrong side and that could be only possible if the car driver was trying to overtake some vehicle in front of the car. Now it does appear that in the Panchanama Exh. 59 there is a statement that the truck was standing on the Murum facing towards east. It was also contended that the Panchanama further shows that both the front wheels of the truck had come out and the tyre rod end of the truck had broken and due to that the front portion of the truck had actually fallen down on the ground on the road and was resting on the suspension, and therefore, the truck, after accident, must have necessarily stopped on the place of accident itself and actually could not have even travelled any distance further, so as to conclude that after the accident the truck might have been swerved to the left side of the road and taken to the Kaccha portion of the road so as to show that it was not the error of the truck driver. It was also further pointed out that according to the Panchanama the diesel tank and the air tank, which are on the driver's side of the truck, were broken and therefore, it was tried to be contended that it appears that the car and the truck did not collide head on but the car, after crossing the truck dashed against the right side of the truck and due to that the two front wheels of the truck came out and the air tank and the diesel tank also were damaged. It was further contended that the contents of the Panchanama show that the car was standing behind the truck at a distance of about 19 feet facing towards north, and such a situation is not possible unless the car had given dash to the truck on the right side of the truck as claimed by respondent No. 2. Now, it is true that the said contents of the Panchanama apparently do show that the truck was standing on the kaccha portion by the side of the tar road. It also shows that the car was standing behind the truck at some distance. It also shows that the two front wheels of the truck had come out and the truck was resting on its suspension on the ground. But there is some evidence in the said Panchanama Exh. 59 which shows that the right side head lamp of the truck was broken, and there was also some dent in the front right side of the mudguard of the truck."

14. Further the learned Judge has also found that :

"If the evidence of respondent No. 2 that the car came and dashed to the right side of the truck near the airtank and diesel tank is truthful, then the breaking of the right head lamp of the truck and the dent in the front right mudguard is not explained. In the case, as is tried to be shown by respondent No. 2 in his evidence, there is absolutely no possibility of any of the head lamps of the truck being broken. Similarly, there would be no dent in the front portion of the right mudguard of the truck, and the car actually would had gone and entered below the truck, as the truck which the present case is a Tata Mercedre truck which normally is much higher than the car. In such an event actually the car would have been dragged further with the truck between the front and the rear wheels. In view of this, I am not inclined to accept the argument of Shri Choudhari that the evidence of Respondent No. 2 in court is truthful. It is no doubt true that the position of the truck and the car as depicted in the Panchanama Exh. 59 does not give a clear picture as to how the accident must have taken place. However, the damage that is caused to the car is apparent from the two photographs Exh. 55 produced by the Applicants. The said photographs have been duly proved by calling the photographer in the witness box. He also has produced the negatives of the two photographs. The damage to the said car is definitely very heavy and speaks for itself. It definitely shows that the impact on the car must necessarily have been very heavy. It appears that the car was dashed on its right side and therefore, no damage was caused to the left side head lamp of the car. Had the car been actually overtaking some other vehicle in front of it, as is tried to be contended by the respondents, then normally the entire front portion including the left side head lamp also should have been damaged."