Delhi High Court
Rajender Prasad Dabas vs Uoi & Ors. on 27 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th August, 2012
+ FAO 83/2002
RAJENDER PRASAD DABAS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jai Gupta, Adv.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Agrawal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Brij Bhushan Solanki, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Rajender Prasad Dabas impugns a judgment dated
20.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) whereby his application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) for grant of compensation in
respect of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 05.01.1989 was dismissed on the ground that the
Appellant failed to establish that the accident was caused on account
of rash and negligent driving of car No.BA-83B-30023K, driven by
Respondent No.3.
2. The manner of the accident, according to the Appellant as stated in the
Claim Petition is extracted hereunder:-
"The petitioner was driving a scooter (LM) Vespa Regs. No.DDI-
6168 inside the Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre near the MI
Room when he was about to enter the Mandir Road linking the
Ring Road to the Station Road from the third approach road from
the Main Gate of the centre, he was hit by the offending DD
vehicle BA No.83B 30023K, Car Ambassador belonging to the
respondent No.1 being driven by respondent No.3 at the instance
of the Respondent No.2 whose staff car it was whose family was
travelling by it. This vehicle was travelling at a very high speed of
approximately 80 KMPH and that too on the wrong side (right) of
the said road. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e.
compound potts fractures and dislocation of the ankle (left) on
account of the said accident which was wholly due to the fault of
the driver of the offending vbehicle and which also resulted in the
damage to the scooter.
It is further alleged that the accident took place within the
jurisdiction of PS Dhaula Kuan and the petitioner sustained
compound potts fracture (i.e. a fracture of Lower end of the Fibula
usually dislocation of ankle) and dislocation of ankle and the
petitioner was treated by the doctors of the Army Hospital, Delhi
Cantt and he remained admitted there for 57 days from 5/1/89 and
was discharged on 3/3/89. By way of present petition, petitioner
claimed ` 2 lacs as compensation."
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement whereas
Respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement. In Para 23 of the
respective written statements they gave the manner of the accident as
under:-
Written statement by Respondents No.1 and 2:-
"23. That the contents of para 23 of the petition are wrong and
denied. It is wrong that the vehicle was being driven at the
instance of respondent No.2, and that his family was travelling in
the Ambassador car. It is further denied that the car was being
driven at a speed of 80 KMPH or rashly and negligently. It is also
denied that the petitioner has suffered any disability on account of
the alleged fracture. However, petitioner be put to strict proof of
the averments made therein. The actual and true facts are that the
respondent's car was going to Teen Murti Marg from Army
Hospital vis Raj Rif Centre and the car was being driven at a
normal speed with due compliance to the traffic rules. The
petitioner came from the small lane at high speed driving his
scooter rashly and negligently in violation traffic rules and
regulations. The petitioner did not blow any horn but entered the
main road at a very high speed and on seeing the respondents
vehicle (car) could not control his scooter, this resulting in the
accident, then though the respondent No.3 who was driving the
vehicle stopped his vehicle by applying brakes.
It is further submitted that the accident was caused solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, who was driving
his scooter rashly and negligently in violation of traffic rules."
Written statement by Respondent No.3:-
"23. That para 23 and its sub paras are all wrong and denied. It is
wrong to say that the accident has caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of the answering respondent. However, it is
submitted that the answering respondent was going on the main
road whereas the petitioner was coming from a side land without
caring and watching the traffic on the main road on his right
dashed into the offending vehicle and got injuries. It is further
submitted that the petitioner came rashly and negligently without
blowing any horn entered the main road at a high speed and on
seeing he car could not control his scooter resulting into the
accident."
4. Thus, all the three Respondents specifically stated about the manner of
the accident. The Appellant was permitted to file Replication. The
specific averments made as to the manner of the accident that the
Appellant himself was to be blamed were not traversed specifically or by
necessary implication. Paras 22 and 23 of the written statement were
replied as under:-
"22-23. That the contents of para no.22 to 23 of the WS are wrong
and denied. That the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.3 at the instance of respondent
no.2 who's family was travelling in the car at that time. That the
contents of the claim application para No.22 and 23 are
reiterated."
5. Not only that the Appellant did not traverse the specific averments made
by the Respondents that the accident was caused solely on the ground of
his own rashness and negligence, the Appellant himself proved DD No.39
recorded in PP Dhaula Kuan in respect of the accident as Ex.PW-3/A.
This DD in fact is recorded on the basis of Appellant's own statement. He
informed the police officer that on that day (05.01.1989) he was
proceeding from Parade Ground Raj Rifle to the Mess. When he reached
near MI Room there were lots of bushes near the corner of the road. On
account of the bushes, he and the driver could not see each other's
vehicle; as a result of which the accident occurred.
6. In his statement made to the police, the Appellant did not blame the
driver of the car for the unfortunate accident. The Claims Tribunal
noticed that it was not the Appellant's case that he was misguided by
anybody to make a statement to the police on the basis of which DD
Ex.PW-3/A was recorded. He did not make any complaint to the police
officer for registration of any case. Thus, non-traversal of the averments
made in the written statement made by the Appellant coupled with the
DD Ex.PW-3/A, the Claims Tribunal declined to believe the Appellant's
version of the accident as set up in the Claim Petition.
7. The conclusion reached by the Claims Tribunal is logical and reasonable.
The same does not call for any interference.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2012
vk
