J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 93 and 94 of 1983, as the question involved is the same in both the appeals and they arise out of the one award of the Motors Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Tribunal).
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the claim petition riled on behalf of Mangal Kishore Kaul, Appellant, on the date of the accident, i.e., November 18, 1981, he as the pillion -rider alongwith his friend Parminderjit Singh, who was driving scooter No. CHU -5757, had gone to the Railway Station, Chandigarh, for the reservation of the railway seats for a group of Punjab University students who had to go on tour. There, they were asked to come again at 11 a.m. At the time of the accident, the two friends were going on the road leading to Panchkula towards the railway station over -bridge. When the scooter being driven on its extreme left side reached very near the same, the offending bus driven by Piara Singh, driver, came at a very rash speed from the opposite side. It suddenly turned towards its extreme right side and struck against the scooterist. As a result, the scooter driver was flung away alongwith the scooter. With the impact, one of the claimants' right leg was totally crushed. The right leg had got fractured on the lower half near the foot and there were multiple fractures on the right thigh, both bones and numerous other injuries. On account of the injuries and the sufferings, the claimant claimed Rs. 5,00,000/ - by way of compensation where as the driver of the scooter, viz., Parminderjit Singh, claimant, claimed Rs. 12,000/ - by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by him on his right wrist and the legs and also as damages for the damage caused to the scooter. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents, in reply to paragraph 24 of the claim petition, the stand taken was that as a matter of fact the scooter driver was driving it at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently in a zig -zag manner towards Mani Majra. When it was about to reach, the height of the over -bridge, he suddenly swerved it towards back side without giving any signal. When he saw the offending bus coming from Mani Majra side, he again tried to turn the scooter and in a fix, he struck against the bus. He was puzzled on seeing the approaching bus as a result, the knee of the pillion rider touched the bumper of the bus. - The scooter driver could not control the scooter and fell down on the left side. The bus was coming at a very slow speed on its extreme left side. Its driver immediately applied the brakes and stopped it then and there. Thus, according to the Respondents, the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the scooterist. In the replication filed on behalf of the claimant, the stand taken in the claim petition was reiterated and it was further stressed that the offending bus had gone to the wrong side of the road and after causing the accident, had turned to its left side after covering some distance and had then stopped. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues in each of the claim petitions: (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the Respondent, Piara Singh? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? (3) Relief. Under issue No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by Piara Singh, Respondent. Unfortunately, no finding was given on issue No. 2 though the parties had led their evidence on that issue as well. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, both the claim petitions were dismissed with costs. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have filed these two separate appeals. The main controversy between the parties in this appeal is whether the finding as recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is sustainable on the basis of the evidence produced on the record.
(3.) THE claimants, in order to prove their case, examined the eye witness J.S. Sandhu, P.W. 8 and Naurang Singh, Police Motor Mechanic, P.W. 5, besides them -selves also entering the witness -box as P.W. 10 and P.W. 11. In rebuttal, the Respondent, only produced Piara Singh, Respondent, the driver of the bus and closed their evidence.;