GANESH KANT Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Order dated 15th June, 1984, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarded a sum of Rs. 67,775, to the appellant, on account of the compensation due to injury received by him in the accident. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum has been allowed from 9th June, 1984. It has also been ordered that out of this sum, Rs. 50,000/ - alongwith interest on this amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company. The complainant is disatisfied with the compensation awarded to him and has preferred this appeal. The opposite party Hira Lal and Ranglal have preferred cross -objections in this appeal. They are the owner and driver of the truck, which was involved in the accident and their contention is that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself and as such he is not entitled to any compensation. Secondly, it is contended that the amount awarded as compensation is excessive.

(2.) ON 12th December, 1979; at about 3 or 3.30 pm in the afternoon, truck No. RJL 9715 driven by Hira Lal was going on road No. 6 in Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. At the crossing with road No. 5, a motor -cycle, driven by the appellant Ganesh Kant was coming from South to North. The direction of the truck was east to west and at this crossing the truck and motor -cycle collided with the result that the right foot of the claimant got crushed and his three fingers fell down at the site itself. He was taken to the hospital where his foot was amputated after an operation. In order to understand the manner in which the accident occurred, the version of both the parties may be first looked into.

(3.) LLEARNED Counsel for the claimant appellant has contended that A.W. 3 Narendra Kasliwal is an independent witness who was coming behind the motor -cyclist on a bicycle. It is contended that the version of this independent witness should be believed and when he has deposed that it was the truck driver who was driving rashly and hit the motor -cyclist and dragged it for some distance then it should be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck -driver. In other words, on the basis of the evidence of this witness, it is contended that the appellant cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence In this connection, both the sides have drawn my attention to Ex. P. 19, which is the site -plan prepared by the police after the accident. In my opinion, this map is more helpful in many -ways than the version of the witness, who may be prejudiced to some extent. According to the site -plan Ex 19 to which the witness Narendra Kumar has also attested A has been shown as the place where the motor -cycle and truck collided with each other and 'B' is the place were the motor -cycle was found after the accident. These two places are very near to each other. 'C' to 'D' is a distance of 13 feet on the road South to North, which shows the motor -cycle applied brake very hard and marks of it were left on the road. After the accident, the truck was standing a little ahead of the inter -Section. There was some blood at the place where the accident occurred and the fingers of the foot were lying. This plan shows that the place 'A' where the truck and motor -cycle collided is more or less in the middle of the road, when one go East to West but it is towards the South. It means that the truck -driver had just crossed the intersection while he was driving on the left of the road, while the motor -cyclist was entering the inter -Section from south and at that time the accident took place.