Bengaluru: Fixing responsibility squarely on the motorist for ensuring pedestrian and commuter safety, the high court has underscored that it is the duty of the person at the wheel to drive with utmost care and caution, particularly at a public place such as a bus stop.
The court’s observation came during a recent judgment in a case in which rash driving by a bus driver resulted in one of the rear wheels of the vehicle running over the left leg of a pedestrian while he was waiting at a bus stop in Mangaluru.
The injured person – a labourer from Tamil Nadu who said he had a monthly earning of just Rs 10,000 – later made a compensation claim of Rs 3 lakh before the court for his injury. “No exception can be made that the driver cannot be held as negligent when one of the rear wheels of a heavy passenger vehicle is said to have passed over the leg of a pedestrian,” Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry noted.
The judge directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Mangaluru to consider afresh the case of claimant T Murugan, who was injured in the accident. “Any driver of a motor vehicle, including a passenger vehicle such as a bus in this case, is required to be more cautious and careful while driving,” Justice Sastry noted.
Partly allowing Murugan’s appeal, the judge has now directed the parties to appear before the tribunal on March 27. According to reports, on January 19, 2017, T Murugan, 45, was waiting near Kankanady bus stand in Mangaluru when a rash and negligent driver ran over Murugan’s left foot, injuring him seriously.
On July 15, 2019, the tribunal rejected Murugan’s compensation claim, claiming he was drunk and there was no fault on the part of the bus driver.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the bus involved in the accident, also defended the tribunal’s order, saying that apart from being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, the claimant had also failed to prove the driver’s negligence.
In his appeal, Murugan’s counsel contended mere smell of alcohol was no proof that the accident had occurred due to the claimant’s negligence. Counsel further argued that police records revealed the driver had chargesheets filed against him for offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of IPC and he had also pleaded guilty.