Point of law: A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of MACT/Special Judge E.C. Act, Meerut dated 13.10.2015 in MACP No.1276 of 2012 (Deepak Sharma Vs. Jitendra Singh and others), by which the claim petition filed by appellant was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by appellant before the learned Tribunal on account of death of father of the appellant Brahm Swarup Sharma in a road accident. As per averments in the petition, on 05.08.2012 at about 3:00 pm, the deceased was going from Meerut to Sardhna by his motorcycle bearing No.UP 15 Q 5760. When he reached by pass road Khirwa crossing, a car bearing No.DL 7 CC 2323 which was coming from the side of Haridwar and was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed into the motorcycle of the deceased. In this accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. The age of the deceased was 58 years. The deceased was serving in Custom and Central Excise Department and was also getting pension due to being an ex-army man.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Tribunal held that in the aforesaid accident the deceased was himself 100% negligent and the car driver was not negligent at all. Learned counsel submitted that there is crossing on the spot of the accident. The car driver was driving the car at a very high speed while the deceased was standing on his motorcycle on the side of the road. The car driver hit the motorcycle because he was driving rashly and negligently. Learned counsel attracted our attention towards the testimony of PW2, who is eyewitness of the accident and submitted that the eye-witness PW-2 has also stated that the deceased was standing on his motorcycle on the side of the road and the car driver dashed into the motorcycle due to high speed. In this way, the car driver was sole negligent but the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court, penned by one of us, Smt. Meenakshi Srivastava Vs. Dheeraj Pandey and others 2022 0 Supreme (All) 318 decided on 11.03.2022.

5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was in service in Central Excise Department, Meerut from where he was getting salary of Rs.20,000/-per month. The deceased was ex-army man and he was getting pension also nearly Rs.7,000/-per month. The age of the deceased was 58 years as per his service book record.

6. Learned insurance company vehemently opposed the submissions made by the appellant and submitted that at the time of accident the deceased came from the side road, which was crossing the highway, hence, it was duty of the deceased to see right and left side of the highway to make sure that no vehicle is coming from either side and after taking aforesaid precaution, he should have crossed the highway but he did not take such precaution. It is also submitted that eye-witness PW2 has given false evidence that the deceased was standing on motorcycle on the side of the road but as per the site-plan, the place of the accident is shown in middle of the road. Moreover, there was no indicating board or red light at the crossing, which could caution the vehicle running on the highway. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the car driver was not negligent and the deceased was sole author of the accident. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment which calls for any interference by this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, let us consider the negligence from the perspective of the law laid down.

8. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstanc