1. Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved of the award dated 6.11.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Agra in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 878 of 2015 on the ground that, in fact, accident had taken place when injured claimant had hit the standing jeep from behind and in support of this contention counsel for the appellant draws attention of this court to the technical examination report of the offending vehicle having registration no. RJ 14 UB/6618(Bollero Jeep) wherein it is mentioned that right mud-guard of the vehicle was damaged. Placing reliance on this report, it is submitted that accident had, in fact, taken place when injured claimant had hit standing jeep from behind.
3. In support of this contention, counsel for the appellant read evidence of DW-2 Yogendra Singh, who was working as Manager (Traffic) in Rajsthan State Road Transport Corporation, DW-3 Rajveer Singh, DW-4 Vinod Kumar Sharma to submit that jeep was stationary and was standing when this accident took place.
4. However, spot map as is available on record reveals that both the vehicles were on the same path and Bollero had hit motorcycle from behind. This spot map available on record is admissible in evidence in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 211-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.
5. Counsel for the claimant supports the award and submits that no interference is called for by this Court.
6. None of the witness of the appellant have disputed the spot map. There is categorical admission of DW-1 that vehicle was moving from Agra to Gwalior. He accepted that jeep was driven from Agra to Gwalior when accident took place in front of Hariom Garden when claimant Bhupendra Singh sustained injuries. Thus finding in regard to issue no. 2 that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bollero is not controverted by any other cogent independent witness. DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 are interested witnesses and they have not been able to controvert the facts on record. On the contrary their admission is that jeep was standing on the other side of the road. They were waiting for Rajasthan Roadways Bus coming from side of Dhaulpur. DW-4 had admitted that he had not seen the accident taking place. DW-2 has not been re-examined before the Tribunal to controvert the statement that jeep was moving when accident took place. In view of such appreciation of evidence, finding of fact recorded by the learned claims Tribunal cannot be faulted calling for any interference in the impugned award on the ground of false implication of the vehicle or on the ground of incorrect projection of the manner in which accident took place. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
7. Record of the Tirbunal be send back immediately.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 S.K.S.