Violation of safety measures for drivers and pillion riders and driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol can lead to the dismissal of a claim in a motor accident case.

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant whose claim petition has been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamsala vide award dated 5.9.1994.

2. The facts giving rise for disposal of the present appeal are that according to the claimant-petitioner on 29.5.1995 he was travelling from Kangra to Palampur by a scooter No. PB-08-9810. He claims that he was driving the scooter and was alone on the scooter. At a place known as 61 Miles, a bus bearing registration No. HP-39-201 belonging to the respondent No. 2 - HRTC and driven by respondent No. 1 Pritam Singh is alleged to have come from the opposite direction. He further alleged that the said bus was driving by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and it struck against the scooter as a result of which he was thrown on the ground. The appellant - claimant claims that he sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of his right leg. He stated that his right leg was amputated at the mid-thigh level resulting in 80% permanent disability.

3. The respondents resisted the claim petition and they have stated that the scooter was not hit at all by the bus. As per the respondents, there were three persons riding on the scooter and the scooter was driven by one Mohinder Singh and the claimant was in fact a pillion rider. As per version of the respondents, there was no impact between the bus and the scooter. All the three persons riding the scooter were in state of intoxication. The scooter skidded and fell down resulting in injuries to the three persons. The respondent No.l as a humanitarian gesture had taken the three injured to the hospital where they were got admitted.

4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues :

1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries in the accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1? OPP

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and if so, from whom and to what extent? OP Parties

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

4. Relief.

5. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and going through the same in detail has come to the conclusion that the claimant - petitioner has failed to prove that the accident had occurred because of collision with the bus. In fact, according to the Tribunal the accident was result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the scooter driver. The claim petition, therefore, was dismissed.

6. Shri Neel Kamal Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal below on the issue of negligence are totally incorrect and are liable to be set aside. He submits that the claimant- petitioner has proved that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. He also submits that even if the case of the appellant is taken at its worst, both the parties should be held equally liable for the accident.

7. I have given my careful consideration to the matter and gone through the entire record. The relevant evidence with regard to the issue of negligence is considered in detail to decide this question.

8. The claimant while appearing as his own witness as PW3 has supported the version given in his claim petition. He also states that he was taken to Zonal Hospital at Dharamsala by the bus driver. According to him, he made no report to the police as he was in the hospital and the F.I.R. was lodged by some other person whose name he does not know. He has denied the suggestion that three persons were riding the scooter at the time of the accident. He also denied the suggestion that in fact it was Mohinder Singh who was driving the scooter at the relevant time. He states that he is the owner of the scooter and the same is registered in his name. He denied the suggestion that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident and