GUMAN MAL LODHA,J. - (1.)THIS appeal filed by the owner of Vehicle No. RRL 7626, and cross -objections by the claimant arise from the accident claims case No. 31 of 1974 decided on 2nd December, 1978.
(2.)THERE was a collision between two buses, No. RRL 551 in which Ramswaroop, the claimant, was travelling, and No. RRL 7626, on 17th March, 1974 on account of which Ramswaroop, received serious injuries due to which his right hand was amputated.
The Tribunal has held that the driver of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving. This part of the finding is not under challenge before this Court. The Tribunal has then held that Ramswaroop would get Rs. 20,000/ - as compensation, out of this, Rs. 15,000/ - ordered to be paid by the driver Purshottam and the owner Abdul Zabbar, of the bus No RRL 7626, jointly and severally. The costs of Rs. 200/ - were also allowed against the insurance company. However, the insurance company with which the bus No. RRL 7626 was insured was held to be not liable but, the insurance company ie. the respondent No. 6, with which the bus No. RRL 551 (the owner of it is Sarfruddin and the driver is (Surajmal) was insured, was held to be liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(3.)IN this appeal, Mr. Prakash Chand Jain, the learned Counsel for the owner of the bus No RRL 7626 pointed out that there is a mistake on account of which the award should not have been more than Rs. 11,000/ -. Mr. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, submitted that the finding regarding contributory negligence of Ramswaroop cannot be sustained because it has been held by this Court in Suraj Narain v. Sneh Lata 1985 ACJ 580 (Rajasthan), that when the two buses or two vehicles pass against or cross each other, then it is the duty of the drivers to leave ample space in between the vehicles and, merely because the passenger's hand was projecting outside, it cannot be said that the passenger is guilty of contributory negligence.