Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Jai Bhagwan Mehra & Anr (United ... on 1 August, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 01.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 542/2018
MUKESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate.
Versus
JAI BHAGWAN MEHRA & ANR (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the order dated 24.04.2018 dismissing the
appellant's claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. He had claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-., for the
injuries suffered by the claimant on account of an accident of the insured
motorcycle, whereon he was riding pillion on 29.12.2014 in a thick fog near
Village Savda & Naya Gaon Bye-pass Road, Haryana, a motor car, being
driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly came from the opposite
direction without blowing any horn and the glare of its headlight blinded the
motorcyclist, causing disbalancing of their motorcycle, resulting in both
falling down and sustaining injuries. The appellant alongwith the motor-
cyclist were rushed to a hospital in Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
2. The claim is against the driver of the offending motor vehicle, for
driving it in a rash and negligent manner. However, this argument is
untenable because it is quite implausible for anybody to be blinded by the
glare of the headlights of a car in a thick fog. Besides, all prudent motor
vehicles' drivers/or motorcyclists would ordinarily drive at a speed lesser
than usual, in a thick fog. Indeed, the thicker the fog, the lesser the speed.
3. The Court would note that the appellant, who sat on the motorcycle of
his friend or acquaintance, is a gratuitous passenger. Apart from merely
stating that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, no other allegation has been made nor has any evidence been led in
this regard.
4. As already stated, it is implausible for somebody to be blinded in a
thick fog by sharp light, on the contrary, what is shown from the record is
that there was a speed breaker which, perhaps, the motorcyclist did not spot
and because of which, the riders fell down and sustained the injuries. The
impugned order has dealt with the issue as under:-
"10. I have perused the complaint given by petitioner to
the police Ex.PW1/5. In the said complaint, it is stated by
the petitioner that on 29.12.2014 he was going on a
motorcycle bearing no.DL-S-7762 as a pillion rider from
Village Gangarwa, District Jhajjar, Haryana to Village
Nilothi. At about 08:00 pm to 08:30 pm, when they reached
near Village Naya Gaon bypass road, Haryana, he saw one
car coming from front side at a high speed, which was being
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in a
zigzag manner. Due to glare of headlight of that car, their
motorcycle got disbalanced and struck against the speed
breaker.
11. Police recorded statement of Mr. Jai Bhagwan
(respondent no.1) on 29.12.2014 itself in which he stated
that on 29.12.2014 he and Mukesh Kumar were going on a
motorcycle bearing no.DL-S-7762 which was being driven
by him and Mukesh Kumar was sitting as a pillion rider and
at about 08:00 pm to 08:30 pm, when they reached near
Village Naya Gaon bypass road, Haryana, suddenly glare
of headlight of one car struck his eyes and due to that he
could not see the speed breaker and his motorcycle struck
against the speed breaker and got disbalanced and they
sustained injuries.
12. In the complaint given by the petitioner to the police,
petitioner has not stated anything about rash and negligent
driving of respondent no.l rather he has only stated about
rash and negligent driving of that car which was coming
from front side. Further, the date on which the application
has been given by the petitioner to the police has not been
mentioned. It seems that the petitioner has improved his
version later which is not in consonance with his statement.
Hence, it is clear that although the accident took place and
petitioner suffered injuries in that accident the accident did
not cause (sic) due to rash and negligent driving of
motorcycle no.DL-11SE-7762. This inter-alia means that
petitioner has not been able to prove that he suffered
injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of
respondent no. 1."
5. What emanates from the aforesaid discussions is that nothing has been
brought on record to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned
order.
6. The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 01, 2019
AB
