Have you ever been in a situation where you were frowned upon for rescuing a critically injured person in a road accident? In my practice as a lawyer I have met many innocent car drivers who were accused of grave offences like culpable homicide, rash and negligent driving so on and so forth. In particular I will mention two incidents. I met a beautiful, lady in the court harried and hassled. On asking her what brings her to court. She told me she has confessed and signed a bond so that she doesn't have to travel every now and then to attend court dates.
I tried to persuade her not to sign the bond and fight it out. Her story is that she rescued 5 men riding on a bike who fell down in front of her car and those 5 men lodged a complaint against her to extort money. This lady was in her mid twenties, married and had the sense of the world to make the decision for herself. Many others may not have that advantage.
It seems like it has become a practice by unscrupulous people to harass vulnerable car drivers. If you ever observe you will find that 90 percent of the car drivers stick to the speed limit, traffic rules, lane driving and 90 percent of bikers zig zag zoom from left right and center on busy roads. Most of them are without helmets. Should such bikers be allowed to take advantage of a strict liability law against Car drivers when they are themselves at fault?
Is there a need to change this "strict liability principle" in the laws? Should we persist on change in attitude of policemen towards the middle class, richer section of the society? Does every one who owns a car become a rash and negligent driver? BMW case, Salman Khan case are exceptions because of which the common man is suffering. Most of them are usual college going or office going people who have to be extra cautious about bikers zooming in and around them. Mostly, bike people take expressways in which they are not allowed. The speed without due regard to safe speed limit and take sharp turns, cutting into the other lane. These maneuvers are the root cause of motor vehicle accidents in India. At some level this kind of behaviour is appalling. Even cattle, dogs and other stray animals have adjusted to the new age of automobiles and cross the road with their senses on full alert. How many times have you seen bikers talking on the cell phone trying to maintain balance and going zippy zapp? How many times have you seen the pillion rider without helmet?
The second incident is that of a car driver who was driving on a single lane road and saw a boy on the left side of the road. On the right hand side of the road was an auto. The driver Slowed the car down so that the little school boy does not come infront of his car while he crosses the road. Little did he know that behind the auto was a girl running towards her brother on the other side of the road. She came infront of the car and died instantly. The driver fled the spot fearing the crowds that gathered. The next day when he read the newspaper article he surrendered himself to the police so that the girl's poor family could get insurance money from his company. Little did he know that laws are too complicated for his goodness. Its been over 4 yrs and he still continues to come to court. No one testified against him in the court not even the girl's family. There were no eyewitnesses. Yet he still follows the system because he walked right into it. How is it that the judicial magistrates took so long to solve such a simple case? Many judges have changed, no final verdict has been passed and this man gets dates that are 5 months apart. This prolongs his agony. The moment he misses one court date warrants are issued against this man.
The advice I gave to these two people is " You're not alone. There are many people like you who are grinded in a system like ours." At the end of the day, as years go by I am compelled to think should these laws be changed?
An accident is an accident. It may not be negligent, rash and there may not be any culpability involved in it. Most of the times in Two wheeler accidents the victim who is injured is the one who victimises the innocent car driver by disregarding the traffic safety rules.
What change can we bring in our laws so that innocent bystanders, rescuers, four wheeler owners are not victimised if they choose to provide emergency aid, trauma- care to the critically injured bike rider?
"India had 72.718 million registered motor vehicles
at the end of the fiscal year 2003-04. Compound annual growth rate of the
vehicle population between 1951 and 2004 was close to 11 per cent.
Two-wheelers and cars (personalized mode of transport) constitute more
than four-fifth of the motor vehicles in the country.......India had 72.718 million registered motor vehicles at the end of the fiscal year 2003-04. Compound annual growth rate of the vehicle population between 1951 and 2004 was close to 11 per cent. Two-wheelers and cars (personalized mode of transport) constitute more
than four-fifth of the motor vehicles in the country...Bulk transport vehicles
(buses, trucks) make up 7.5 per cent of all registered vehicles, but caused
30 per cent of the accidents; about 38 per cent of deaths.Another notable feature was that 53 per cent of the persons who died in road accidents were pedestrians
and 28 per cent were two-wheeler drivers.."- LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA report.
Statistics are a tricky tool to policy formulation. They do not always show the complete dynamics involved. Numbers and tables mostly don't. If statistics say that Buses, trucks are responsible for 30% of the accidents does it mean that all those 30% of the drivers were rash and negligent as opposed to the person that got killed who could be pedestrian or car/bike driver?
I have also met kins of accident victims who have no grudge, no animosity against bus/truck drivers who happen to overrun their father/son/brother.
The question that arises now is how can laws be changed so that they are not lopsided, prejudiced and more people come forward to rescue critically injured without having to fear themselves being victimised by the police, judiciary and the other party? If our laws are sufficiently drafted how is it that the conviction rate is so low? Why should an innocent person undergo the grind in the first place? Is there any way we can check that the other party is not blinded by its greed for insurance money, compensation? Is it just tough luck?
Surely the victims sometimes end up victimising people who were not responsible for their injuries. Even people who are responsible for their own injuries and accidents they end up gunning after those who tried to help them in the first place.
Comments
Post a Comment