Carter road accident genuine one: Alistair's lawyer

Mumbai, July 9 (UNI) Contending that the trial judge had taken into consideration an opinion of a motor vehicle inspector which was never given, the lawyer appearing for Alistair Pereira claimed in the Bombay High Court today that knowledge of people sleeping on the pavement could not be attributed to her client and termed it ''a genuine accident''.

Arguing against the appeal filed by State government seeking enhancement of sentence of Pereira, convicted for rash driving that killed seven labourers and injured eight others on Carter road in Bandra on last November, Advocate Manjula Rao claimed that two trucks were parked on the ''S'' shaped curves of the road where the accident took place, blocking further view and that it could not have been possible for anybody to see beyond the vehicles.

As there was no sign of anybody sleeping on the pavement, she contended, the knowledge that some people were sleeping on the pavement and shanties beside the road could not be attributed to Alistair Pereira, she added.

Advocate Rao's attempt to portray the accident as genuine accident prompted the Advocate General Ravi Kadam to allege that she was constructing a completely new theory and all that evidence was examined before the trial court.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Swantanter Kumar and Justice Ranjana Desai, hearing the appeals filed by the State and Alistair for acquittal too, quipped that there was hardly any road these days where parked vehicles were not seen on night.

Brushing aside these remarks, Advocate Rao continued in her attempt to impress the court that the accident was genuine one and was unavoidable.

She brought to the notice of the court that with right wheel - of the Pereira's Toyoto Corrollo - dismantled and other deflated, it was completely impossible to control the vehicle.

She also pointed out a discrepancy in the judgement saying that, while the motor vehilce inspector had refused to give his opinion as to whether any mechanical fault had caused the accident as the vehicle was not in working condition, the trial court came to the conclusion that brakes were not damaged nor any mechanical fault was found with the vehicle.

UNI