Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The circumstantial evidence on record make out the case to hold that the driver of auto-rickshaw was also negligent in driving the auto-rickshaw. As per the FIR lodged by the driver of auto-rickshaw, at the relevant time of the accident, he was proceeding with 4 passengers in auto-rickshaw from Pokharni to Parbhani. From Pokharni, he came to Singnapur Phata. When he reached near Singnapur Phata, one water tanker was ahead of him. One tractor came from opposite direction. In order to give side to tractor, the driver of auto-rickshaw took his auto- rickshaw to the left side of the road. When he took his auto-rickshaw to the left side of the road, the driver of the water tanker took his tanker in a reverse direction without taking care of vehicle coming from his rear side, which resulted into dash between the auto-rickshaw and the water tanker. On receiving dash, the deceased fell down from the auto-rickshaw and sustained injuries which resulted into his death. Thus, the fact is not in dispute that except the tractor, the auto- rickshaw and the water tanker were in the same direction. The fact is also not in dispute that the water tanker was parked to the extreme left side of the road. The fact is also not in dispute that the auto-rickshaw dashed to rear portion of the water tanker. The incident occurred in a day time, i.e. about 3.00 p.m. As per the sketch map at Exh.41, the incident had occurred at about 200 to 250 feet away from Singnapur Phata, that too, to the extreme west side of the Gangakhed-Parbhani road. The road from Gangakhed to Parbhani runs in south-north direction. In the sketch map, the Singnapur Phata is shown to the east side of Gangakhed-Parbhani road and the tanker is shown to be 7 FA 2225.12 d2 standing by the western side edge of Gangakhed-Parbhani road i.e. beyond the western side edge of the tar road. The actual spot of incident is shown to be located at some distance away from the water tanker and that too on the tar road. The width of tar road is shown to be 24 feet with 5 feet kaccha road on each side of tar road. Thus, considering the overall facts of the case, the spot panchanama and the sketch map, it can be safely inferred that, the auto-rickshaw and the tractor could have safely passed from the 24 feet wide tar road if they were proceeding in opposite direction. In that view, there was no reason for the auto-rickshaw driver to take his vehicle to his extreme left for giving passage to the tractor coming from opposite direction. Since the incident occurred in broad day light and there was no issue of visibility, there was no reason for auto-rickshaw to dash the water tanker from behind. Looking to the width of the road and the fact that the tanker was to the left side of the road, the driver of the auto- rickshaw could have averted the accident, even assuming that the driver of the water tanker was taking his vehicle in a reverse direction without proper care and caution. The circumstances on record clearly indicate that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was also driving his vehicle in a negligent manner and without proper care and caution of the other vehicles on the road. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal can be said to be a possible view in the matter and the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse so as to call for interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.