Road mishap: Injured south Delhi man refused compensation due to own faul

“The facts clearly shows that the petitioner would not have been maintaining safe distance from the vehicle going ahead (and) that is why he is telling such a vague and improbable story,” the tribunal said.

The tribunal also observed that the petitioner has not been able to tell the exact manner of the accident as to how it took place and did not remember the registration number of the offending truck.

“From the manner stated in the petition and affidavit, it can be safely said that the accident was caused because of his (petitioner’s) negligence as he did not maintain the safe distance from the vehicle going ahead but from the version given in cross­examination, it seems that some other vehicle had hit him from the right side.

“Both the stands are contradictory to each other and it is not clear as to how the accident actually took place,” it said.

The tribunal further said that the petitioner’s case was based upon bald allegations without any substantial proof of the accident in the form of photographs of the vehicle involved in the mishap, the number of the other vehicle involved in the accident, their mechanical inspection reports, among others.

“It can be said that it is a case which is based on bald allegations only without any sufficient proof even about the manner of accident.

“Needless to say that the petitioner cannot take any stand in his evidence in contradiction to the stand taken in his pleadings and the stand taken by him in his pleadings clearly shows negligence on his part only,” it said.

According to the petitioner, a resident of Mehrauli here, he was going to Faridabad from Haridwar late at night on April 14, 2013 in his container truck when another truck came and overtook him.

The offending vehicle applied sudden brakes due to which he hit the vehicle from behind.