Raju Malakar @ Namo vs Sate Of Chhattisgarh 8 Mcrc/10056/2018 ... on 4 January, 2019
13. Record reveals that petitioner no.1/injured has relied upon
DAR as Ex.PW-1/9. The same contains the FIR registered in the
present case at the instance of petitioner no.1, on his statement
made to the police on 07.09.2017. As per such statement,
petitioner no.1 had alleged that the accident occurred at 8.40 PM
when he and his son had reached at JNS Flyover on their scooty
and had parked their scooty on a side of a flyover. The exact
words used in the complaint are " maine apni scooty road ke
MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 7 Of 23 BK
:8:
kinare par khadi karke main apne ladke to taazi hawa khilwa raha
tha". As such, the same contents are reflected in the FIR as well.
Even in his testimony, PW-1 has stated "... one offending vehicle
scooty bearing no.DL-3SCK-4548 being driven by Respondent
no.1 in very rash and negligently manner and came and hit into
me from back side...". Petitioner has not claimed that Respondent
no.1 "hit his vehicle". Thus, it is evident that the accident
occurred at the time when the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2
were standing on the flyover with their vehicle parked by the
side. Thus, having regard to the fact that the petitioners
themselves were in violation of the traffic rule by parking their
vehicle on the flyover where the accident occurred and risked
their lives by standing on the road, this Tribunal assesses
contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner no.1 to be
10% and on the part of petitioner no.2 (keeping in view his age
as at that time)to be 5%.