Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This   appeal,   by   special   leave,   filed   by   the   claimants assails   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   High   Court   of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal From Order No.125 of 2015 dated 5th March, 2015, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the   order   passed   by   the  MACT/Additional   District   Judge­III, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, dated 10 th December, 2014 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.147 of 2012 dismissing the claim petition on the finding that the accident in question was not on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing No.   U.P.­32   Z­2397   but   on   account   of   rash   and   negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing No. U.P.­02 D­5292 resulting in death of Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car driven by Manjeet Singh, came to be upheld.

5. The Tribunal analysed the entire evidence on record and answered the issue as to whether the truck was being driven in   rash   and   negligent   manner   against   the   appellants.   The Tribunal instead held that the accident occurred due to rash and   negligent   driving   by   the   driver   of   the   maruti   car.   The Tribunal,   therefore,   concluded that the  truck driver  and  the insurer  of  the  truck were not liable to pay compensation as claimed.   The   Tribunal   noted   the   issue   of   contributory negligence but, having regard to the facts of the present case and   particularly   because   the   owner   and   the   driver   of   the maruti car were not made parties, it held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal also noted that the maruti car was purchased by Manjeet Singh about 1­1½ years before the accident but the same was not transferred in his name nor was it insured. Taking an overall view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 10th December, 2014.

7. The   appellants   have   assailed   the   aforementioned decisions   in   this   appeal.   According   to   the   appellants,   the finding   recorded   by   the   Tribunal   and   affirmed   by   the   High Court, that the driver of the maruti car had not maintained safe distance from the truck running ahead of the maruti car in the same direction, is untenable. The appellants have also assailed   the   finding   of   fact   recorded   by   the   Tribunal   and affirmed by the High Court that the maruti car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is urged that the fact that the maruti car was not registered in the name of Manjeet Singh or that the documents pertaining to the maruti car and even the valid   driving   licence   of   the   driver   of   maruti   car   was   not brought   on   record,   cannot   denude  the   appellants   to   receive compensation   due   to   contributory   negligence   of   the   truck driver.   Further,   the   Tribunal   committed   manifest   error   in recording the finding on the issue of contributory negligence against   the   appellants   without   framing   any   issue   in   that behalf. It is urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal to absolve the truck driver, on the ground that the truck was not driven   rashly   and   negligently,   is   perverse   and   untenable   in law.   Moreover,   the   Tribunal has completely  glossed over  the efficacy   of   the   charge­sheet   filed   by   the   police   against respondent   No.3   truck   driver   after   due   investigation.   The appellants   have   also   reiterated   their   claim   regarding compensation, on the assertion that deceased Balvinder Kaur was earning around Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per   month   and   after  her  death,  her   family   was  facing  grave hardship. According to the appellants, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had dealt with the matter in a hyper­technical manner and did not appreciate the evidence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

22. On the basis of the aforesaid interpretation it appears that the said accident didn’t occur on 28.11.2010 at about 6:45   p.m.   at   village   Kunda   Kashipur­Jashpur   Road   under area of P.S. Kunda district Udham Singh Nagar by the driver of   the   truck   bearing   No.   U.P.­32   Z­2397   due   to   rash   and negligent driving of the truck and by applying sudden break but it occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti   Car   bearing   No.   U.P.­02   D­5292   in   question   by Manjeet   Singh   driver,   wherein   Balvinder   Kaur   who   was sitting   in   the   car   sustained   serious   injuries   and   expired during her treatment on account of serious injuries.”  The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the   High   Court,   by   observing   that   the   evidence   was   clearly indicative of the fact that the maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the maruti car. The maruti car was driven by none other than   PW­2   Manjeet  Singh. In his evidence, he  has  admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite   some   time   about   one   kilometre   and   at   the   time   of accident, the distance between the truck and maruti car was only 10 ­15 feet. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which   the   two   vehicles  were  moving   was  only  about  14  feet wide.   It   is   unfathomable   that   on   such   a   narrow   road,   the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case,   the   maruti   car   which   was   following   the   truck   was expected   to   maintain   a   safe   distance,   as   envisaged   in Regulation   23   of   the   Rules   of   the   Road   Regulations,   1989, which reads thus: