ANU BHANVARA Vs. SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral)- Both the appeals relate to an accident that took place on 21.03.2010. The accident resulted in amputation of wrist of the boy aged 15 years which is the subject matter of appeal in FAO No.5460 of 2012. The privation of the wrist which was assessed as resulting in 55% disability. The applicant in FAO No.5461 of 2012 was Rohit, boy aged 18 years, studying in school who suffered amputation of a hand below elbow that was assessed as resulting in 70% disability. The doctor was examined in both the cases to speak about the extent of disability that has been caused.

(2.) The petitions were, however, dismissed on a finding that in the FIR registered by the uncle of the claimant in FAO No.5460 of 2012 was also incidentally father of the claimant in FAO No.5461 of 2012 that when they were travelling in the first respondent's jeep, a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, whose particulars are not known, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle in which they were travelling. The police investigation did not yield to identifying the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction. The claimants therefore made a claim against the owner, insurer and the driver of the vehicle in which they were themselves travelling. The Tribunal held that the negligence had not been proved and, therefore, the claim could not be entertained. As far as the claimant in FAO No.5461 of 2012, there was an additional reasoning adopted by the Tribunal that in the MLR, it has been recorded that he was travelling in a car and even the identity of the vehicle in which he was stated to be travelling had not been established.

(3.) The accident to my mind is a typical situation of a res ipsa loquitur where the scope of proving negligence is literally minimum. No person travels in a vehicle to get killed or suffer serious deprivation. If two vehicles are involved in a collision or any passenger in a vehicle is hurt, I would understand this to be a result of composite negligence of two drivers. If the initial statement before the police was that yet another vehicle was responsible for the accident, I will tone it down to mean that yet another vehicle is predominantly responsible. In no case of collision, one could rule out the responsibility of a driver whose passengers were hurt. It will be a contradiction in terms to suggest that a careful driving resulted in injuries to his passengers. The accident was explained by the owner of the vehicle as resulting in a situation when the goods which the vehicle had carried has been dropped off and it was a festival time when several persons had brought themselves on the jeep who were but gratuitous passengers. The two persons who were injured were literally hanging out with their hands protruding and that it was only the vehicle coming from the opposite direction which was responsible and no part of negligence was even recorded in the FIR. According to him, the dismissal of the petition was, therefore, justified.