S.S.SODHI,J. - (1.) THE claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimants being the parents of Jagtar Singh deceased, who was killed when while driving his cycle, he was involved in an accident with the scooter DEK 5750. This happened at about 11.30 A.M. on February 23, 1983 on the Sirsa-Barnala Road. The Tribunal held both Jagtar Singh deceased and Ram Bilas - the driver of the scooter, equally to blame for this accident. After making an allowance for the contributory negligence of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded as compensation to his parents.
(2.) THE challenge, in the first instance, is to the finding of the contributory negligence recorded against Jagtar Singh deceased. According to the case set up by the claimants, the accident Occurred when the scooter coming from the opposite direction suddenly came on to its wrong side and hit into the cycle of the deceased. Respondent-Ram Bilas chose merely to put-forth a plea of denial to the allegations in the claim application regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. No counter-version was given by him. The case of the claimants is founded upon the testimony of P.W. 6- Kashmira Singh and P.W. 7. Hamek Singh who deposed that they witnessed the occurrence and that the accident took place when scooter of Ram Bilas went on to the wrong side of the road and hit into the cycle of Jagtar Singh. Both these witnesses have given a consistent account of the occurrence and counsel for the respondent could point to no discrepancies or contradictions to create any doubt in their testimony. What is more, it has come on record that a criminal case was registered against Ram Bilas with regard to this accident and the first information report thereof was recorded on the statement of P.W. 6- Kashmira Singh. This report exhibit PD, is in consonance with the version deposed to by this witness before the Tribunal.
(3.) THE only testimony forth coming from the side of the respondents, is the statement of P.W. 1 - Ram Bilas, who deposed that the accident occurred when the deceased suddenly came on to the road and in front of his scooter and the accident then took place. A suggestion to this effect had also been made to P.W. 6 - Kashmira Singh and P.W. 7 - Harnek Singh which was denied by them both. Support was also sought from the site plan exhibit PE where the attempt was to construe it to imply that the accident had been caused by the cyclist suddenly coming on to the road. There is clearly no warrant for drawing such an inference merely from the place where the scooter and the cycle are shown to be lying after the accident;