K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) ALL the appeals are connected and they arise out of the same accident. The appeals in FAO Nos.3084 and 3086 of 1996 are for enhancement of compensation for personal injuries, while the appeal in FAO No.3085 of 1996 is for compensation for damage to the vehicle.
(2.) THE accident took place on 16.07.1993. Shingara Singh and Naresh Kumar took scooter from Kanwar Pal. Shingara Singh was driving the scooter and Naresh Kumar was the pillion rider. In the meanwhile, a gypsy maruti came from the opposite side and hit the scooter. The Tribunal found both the drivers of the vehicles negligent and apportioned the liability as 50:50. The appeal in FAO Nos.3084 to 3086 of 1996 are at the instance of claimants -Naresh Kumar, Kanwar Pal and Shingara Singh respectively that the Tribunal was in error in holding them responsible for the said accident.
(3.) IT is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the scooterist and the apportionment of liability between the driver of the scooter and the driver of the maruti gypsy in the ratio of 50:50 was erroneous. As per the version of PW2, the scooterist was coming from Uchana side towards Karnal. A gypsy was coming from Karnal side and a maruti gypsy had suddenly applied brakes while it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner that caused the scooterist to dash against the maruti gypsy. The claimants Shingara and Naresh Kumar have also a similar version. It is not as if the maruti gypsy was going ahead of scooter and the driver of the gypsy applied the brakes suddenly without signalling that resulted in the scooterist to dash against the vehicle. There were two vehicles coming on the opposite direction and it was no virtue of the driver of maruti car to suddenly apply the brake to make for an inference that he had applied caution. In a typical road accident scene involving two vehicles coming from opposite directions, I will look for a greater degree of circumspection from a heavier vehicle in a collision between a four wheeler and a scooter. I will, therefore, place a greater responsibility for the driver of the four -wheeler to prevent an accident. Under the circumstances, I will modify the case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and apportion the liability between the driver of the scooter and the driver of the maruti gypsy in the ratio of 25:75.;