O.P.SAXENA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 1.2.1977 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rampur (I Additional District Judge, Rampur) dismissing an application for compensation with costs on parties.
(2.) THE facts giving-rise to this appeal are that on 5.11.1972 at 1.30 P.M. one Naresh Kumar Sawhney, a student of law previous aged about 20 years met with an accident. The accident took place on the Thandi Sarak connecting Gandhi Samadhi with Benazir Road. Gandhi Samadhi falls on the way to Civil Lines, Rampur. The applicant is a resident of Civil Lines. He was returning from the Corporation Cinema on his way back home. He was sitting on pillion of motor cycle No. U.S.I. 2609 driven by his friend Vijai Jolly. Bus No. D.L.P. 4387, belonging to opposite party No. 1, insured with opposite party No. 2 and driven by opposite party No. 3 Shanker, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the moror cycle. The motor-cycle fell in a Nali on the right side of the road, The applicant received severe injuries. On 20.12.74 the applicant filed a petition claiming Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. He also gave an application for condoning the delay in filing the petition. The application was allowed on 1.3.75. It was said that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by opposite party No. 3. the details of compensation were given in an application on paper No. 39 kha filed subsequently. The petition was contested by opposite party No. 1 with the allegation that the accident took place not due to the negligence of the opposite party No. 3 but due to the negligence of the driver of the motor-cycle who became nervous on seeing the bus coming and instead of moving towards the left side of the road, took a turn towards the right side. It was on account of this that the motor-cycle dashed against the bus and fell in the Nali on the right hand side. The applicant received injuries as a result thereof. It was denied that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The amount of compensation claimed was challenged.
(3.) OPPOSITE parties Nos. 2 and 3 did not contest the petition.;