ORDER Rajes Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal under Section HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the order dated 10.2.1982 passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 10 of 1981 between Smt. Saraswati Devi and Jaisawal Oil Traders, Ghazipur by which the claim petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed under the Act claiming a sum of Rs. one lac towards compensation on the ground that on 12.1.1981 her son Vinod Kumar who was aged about 18 years and was student of Class XII was crushed to death due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tanker No. U.T.H. 2372 belonging to M/s. Jaisawal Oil Traders which was insured by the National Insurance Company. It was alleged that Vinod Kumar was returning towards village on cycle from Chaubepur and the tanker came behind and crushed him causing death. The death had occurred due to only rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid tanker. The claim was contested by the owner of the tanker M/s. Jaisawal Oil Traders and also National Insurance Company. The respondent opposite party pleaded that the accident had occurred not due to the negligence of the driver of Tanker but due to the negligence of Vinod Kumar himself. Three issues were framed. Out of which Issue No. 1 is relevant for the purposes of present appeal which was as follows :
"Issue No. 1. Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of driver or due to the negligence of the deceased?"
3. The Tribunal held that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence of driver of Tanker but on account of negligence of the deceased Vinod Kumar and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed.
4. I have heard Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite the list being revised. The Tribunal by rejecting the claim of the appellant held that the claimant produced five witnesses. Out of the five witnesses, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 has categorically stated that from the right hand side, the bus was going and behind the bus a tanker was going and the boy was going on the left side of the road. As soon as the bus was crossed, the boy turned towards right and crushed in the accident by the tanker which going behind the bus at the distance of 8 feet. It was also accepted by the witnesses that the bus was going slowly and as such tanker was also moving slowly. It has also been observed that the statement of P.W. 5 Kedar Nath was concocted and cannot be relied upon, who has stated that the bus was going in the front and the tanker was going behind the bus and the tanker had tried to take over the bus for that purpose he moved towards right and crushed the boy who was moving at right side of the road. Tribunal held that the story of taking over the bus is altogether a new one and the learned counsel for the opposite party correctly argued that it is concocted one. In view of the above statement of the witnesses, Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident took place not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver but due to the negligence of the boy himself and could not have been avoided by the driver of the tanker with all ability and responsibility on his command.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal is erroneous. He submitted that the accident had occurred on account of the fact that the tanker was trying to take over the bus and was in high speed causing accident to the boy who was going on left side by bicycle.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of Tribunal and record of lower court in which the statement of witnesses are annexed. 1 do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were the eyewitnesses. Statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 shows that the bus was going from the right side and behind the bus there was a tanker at the distance of 8 feet near by and when the bus had crossed, the boy turned his vehicle towards right side resulting the accident by the tanker. The fact regarding the taking over of bus, by the tanker, neither being stated in the examination-in-chief by the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 nor in cross-examination. The statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are also supported by the statement of driver D.W. 1. The driver of vehicle Sri Katwaru D.W. 1 stated that the bus was going and behind the bus there was a tanker whose speed was 30 Kms. per hour and at the time of the accident, he was not trying to overtake the bus. He further stated that the boy was going by bicycle and immediately after the bus was crossed, he turned his cycle. I tried to save him but it appears that the boy had fallen from the cycle and crushed by the rear wheel. From the above statements, it appears that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the driver causing accident. When the boy turned the cycle towards the tanker, it appears that it was impossible for the driver of the tanker to the best of his ability to stop the vehicle though he stated in his statement that he had tried to save him. The age of boy was 18 years, it was expected from the boy to drive the cycle carefully on the main road which happened to be Varanasi-Ghazipur road. The speed of the vehicle which was told was 30 Km. per hour, cannot be said to be high speed. Main road/Highways are meant for movement for heavy vehicles on an average speed of 60 Km. per hour. The pedestrian and smaller vehicles should take extra precautions on their movement on Highways and they have to be more careful and cautious. In my opinion, while moving on a highway, there should be a road culture. When we are thinking towards the fast movement on the road and for which Government is great concerned about the good road so that the automobile vehicle should move fast. Some responsibility should be put on the pedestrian and on the smaller vehicle moving on the highway and other main road, heavy vehicle and other auto mobile vehicle unless it is found that they were moving on a wrong side in violation of the rules and with negligence.
7. Therefore, if an accident occurs on Highways unless a case is made out that vehicle is being driven very rashly and wholly negligently or they are moving on a wrong side in violation of rule the driver of the vehicle cannot be blamed and held responsible.
8. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal which is based on the considerations of the statement of the witnesses.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.