Ramesh Chand Vs. Daljit Singh and ors.

delhi high court rules--lpa--appellant a pedestrian run over by three-wheeler scooter--three-wheeler scooter struck appellant to save a girl pedestrian--accident claims tribunal dismissed claim of appellant--three-wheeler scooter about to run over a girl and to avoid ran over appellant clearly amount to negligence of three-wheeler - aappellant awarded rs.12,600/- as compensation for injuries sustained - three-wheeler scooter being insured liability would be of insurance company-; the very fact that three-wheeler was about to run over a girl and to avoid that he ran over the appellant, shows that the three-wheeler was not under the control of the driver either because of excessive speed or due to careless driving. the facts speak for themselves and the case will fall under the maxim - rest ipsa loquitur. this would clearly amount to negligence of the three-wheeler.; accordingly, the appeal is allowed and after holding the three- wheeler gulity of negligence, we award rs. 12,600/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant as also for the loss of salary, conveyance, medical charges etc. as assessed by the motor accident claims tribunal. the appellant would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the dale of filing of the claim application till payment. he would also be entitled to costs throughout.; since the three-wheeler was insured , the liability would be on the insurance company. the insurance company should pay the amount to be appellant within three months. - - this would clearly amount to negligence of the three-wheeler......tibia and assessed the compensation at rs. 12,600.00 . since negligence was not proved, the claim application was dismissed. the learned single judge dismissed the appeal in liming. this is a letters patent appeal against the order of the learned single judge.--- *** ---ona consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the tribunal took wrong view on facts and in law. a reading of, what the appellant, stated in the daily diary, shows that the three wheeler tried to save a girl pedestrian and while doing so, he hit the appellant. so far a.s the appellant is concerned, the three-wheeicr's driver would be negligent in driving the vehicle. the very fact that he was about to run over a girl and to avoid that he ran over the appellant, shows that the three-wheeler was not under the control of the drivel either because of excessive speed or due to careless driving. the facts speak for themselves and the case will fall under the maxim - rest ipsa loquitur. this would clearly amount to negligence of the three-wheeler. whether such an act of the three-wheeler would amount to negligence within the meaning of law may not be known to the appellant and his judgment on this maker is not binding and should have been ignored.accordingly, appeal is allowed and after holding the three- wheeler guilty of negligence, we award rs. 12,600.00 as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant as also for the loss of salary, conveyance, medical charges etc. as assessed by the motor accident claims tribunal. the appellant would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. he would also he entitled to costs throughout. since the three-wheeler was insured , the liability would be on the insurance company. the insurance company should pay the amount to be appellant within three months.