Q. What are the equivalent citations for Lingeshvaran Durgaiya Gaud vs The State of Maharashtra and Others ?

The equivalence citation are1 (1987) ACC 146 ; 1987 (1) TAC 447 ; LQ/BomHC/1986/16 ;

Lingeshvaran Durgaiya Gaud Vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others On 09 January, 1986

Open iDraf

Lingeshvaran Durgaiya Gaud v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Lingeshvaran Durgaiya Gaud
v.
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

| 09-01-1986

V.V. Vaze, J.

1. Lingeshvaran Gaud is employed as a driver by Lijjat Papad concern and his duties require him to drive their vehicle to transport staff from place to place. On 28-9-1970 Gaud as usual brought the workers to Dadar Railway Station, Western Railway and parked his vehicle opposite the general railways stores near the eastern "foot path. The occupants got down from the rear left door and as Gaud felt that the door was not properly locked by the alighting workmen he got down from the drivers seat and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut. While doing so Gaud noticed from his side view mirror that a government vehicle was coming from behind. The vehicle brushed passed him, dashed against his right foot and shoulder as well as the body of his vehicle. Gaud was treated for fracture for which he had to incur medical expenses and preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay which dismissed the claim on the ground that there was no negligence. Alternatively the learned Member of the Tribunal has quantified damages of Rs. 3021/- should the negligence be proved.

2. The drivers of the two vehicles have examined themselves. According to Ramchandra Chavan, driver of the police van, he was carrying about 50 police personnel in the van and had noticed the vehicle of the applicant parked near the foot path. Chavan also saw that the driver of the parked vehicle has got down from his seat and had closed the door. He passed by the vehicle and heard people saying that his vehicle has met with an accident. Chavan got down from his vehicle and took the applicant Gaud to K.E.M. hospital.

3. Thus, it is the case of word against word-Chavan maintaining that the gap between his vehicle and that of the applicant was about 5/6 feet when he passed the vehicle. If Chavan was to be believed regarding his estimate of the gap between the two vehicles one would have to conclude that the only way the accident could have taken place was if the applicant Gaud had gone out of his mind or was on a suicide bid. An experienced driver of a vehicle noticing another motor vehicle passing by his side leaving a comfortable gap of 5/6 feet would never attempt to run towards the passing vehicle. More so, when all that he wanted to do was to alight from the seat, go round the bonnet from the front portion and close the rear door which was carelessly kept open by the alighting occupants. As Gaud only wanted to close the rear door of his vehicle there was no purpose in crossing the road which near the railway station is very busy one.

4. On going through the evidence I find that scenario can be reconstructed only on hypothesis that Chavan the driver of the police van misjudged the clearance between his vehicle and the one of Lijjat Papad and brushed the right portion of the later vehicle in a bid to pass by it. It was not a case of a collusion or a dash which would have surely been apparent on the body of the vehicle. Chavan left a very narrow margin for the driver Gaud to negotiate. He managed to avoid being hit by the front-bumper of the police van but did not have enough space to dodge being hit by the rear portion of the police van though not seriously. Some protruding portion of the rear of the police van must have been responsible for the hit which was misjudged by Chavan. Chavan did not see that rear portion of his van had hit Gaud and understandably so because his eyes would be riveted to the front portion of the road and was only told about it by the passers-by.

5. In these premises I find that the learned Member of the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the applicant has failed to prove negligence. The appeal succeeds and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are ordered to pay Rs. 3021/- and costs and also to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim till realisation.

Advocates List

Bench List

HONBLE JUSTICE V.V. VAZE

Eq Citation

1 (1987) ACC 146

1987 (1) TAC 447

LQ/BomHC/1986/16

HeadNote

HEADNOTES — Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Ss. 110 and 111 — Negligence — Reconstruction of accident — Word against word — Appreciation of evidence — Accident occurred when applicant driver of a vehicle parked his vehicle and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut — While doing so he noticed from his side view mirror that a government vehicle was coming from behind — Vehicle brushed passed him, dashed against his right foot and shoulder as well as the body of his vehicle — Held, scenario can be reconstructed only on hypothesis that driver of the police van misjudged the clearance between his vehicle and the one of Lijjat Papad and brushed the right portion of the later vehicle in a bid to pass by it — It was not a case of a collusion or a dash which would have surely been apparent on the body of the vehicle — Chavan left a very narrow margin for the driver Gaud to negotiate — He managed to avoid being hit by the front-bumper of the police van but did not have enough space to dodge being hit by the rear portion of the police van though not seriously — Some protruding portion of the rear of the police van must have been responsible for the hit which was misjudged by Chavan — Chavan did not see that rear portion of his van had hit Gaud and understandably so because his eyes would be riveted to the front portion of the road and was only told about it by the passers-by — Impugned order set aside — Respondents directed to pay Rs. 3021/- and costs and also to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim till realisation — Tort Law — Negligence — Reconstruction of accident — Accident occurred when applicant driver of a vehicle parked his vehicle and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut — While doing so he noticed from his side view mirror that a government vehicle was coming from behind — Vehicle brushed passed him, dashed against his right foot and shoulder as well as the body of his vehicle — Held, scenario can be reconstructed only on hypothesis that driver of the police van misjudged the clearance between his vehicle and the one of Lijjat Papad and brushed the right portion of the later vehicle in a bid to pass by it — It was not a case of a collusion or a dash which would have surely been apparent on the body of the vehicle — Chavan left a very narrow margin for the driver Gaud to negotiate — He managed to avoid being hit by the front-bumper of the police van but did not have enough space to dodge being hit by the rear portion of the police van though not seriously — Some protruding portion of the rear of the police van must have been responsible for the hit which was misjudged by Chavan — Chavan did not see that rear portion of his van had hit Gaud and understandably so because his eyes would be riveted to the front portion of the road and was only told about it by the passers-by — Impugned order set aside — Respondents directed to pay Rs. 3021/- and costs and also to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim till realisation — Tort Law — Negligence — Reconstruction of accident — Word against word — Appreciation of evidence — Accident occurred when applicant driver of a vehicle parked his vehicle and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut — While doing so he noticed from his side view mirror that a government vehicle was coming from behind — Vehicle brushed passed him, dashed against his right foot and shoulder as well as the body of his vehicle — Held, scenario can be reconstructed only on hypothesis that driver of the police van misjudged the clearance between his vehicle and the one of Lijjat Papad and brushed the right portion of the later vehicle in a bid to pass by it — It was not a case of a collusion or a dash which would have surely been apparent on the body of the vehicle — Chavan left a very narrow margin for the driver Gaud to negotiate — He managed to avoid being hit by the front-bumper of the police van but did not have enough space to dodge being hit by the rear portion of the police van though not seriously — Some protruding portion of the rear of the police van must have been responsible for the hit which was misjudged by Chavan — Chavan did not see that rear portion of his van had hit Gaud and understandably so because his eyes would be riveted to the front portion of the road and was only told about it by the passers-by — Impugned order set aside — Respondents directed to pay Rs. 3021/- and costs and also to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim till realisation — Tort Law — Negligence — Reconstruction of accident — Accident occurred when applicant driver of a vehicle parked his vehicle and wanted to go around the vehicle and slam the offending panel shut — While doing so he noticed from his side view mirror that