PANWAR, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 2nd July 1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter for short ``the Tribunal'') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 35,776/- in favour of the respondent claimant No. 1 Harish Chandra (Respondent No. 1) (hereinafter for short ``the claimant'') in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 272/93 and the appellant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 396 of 1993.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by the Judgment and Award impugned, the Executive Engineer, IGNP, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in question, as well as the Claimant Harish Chandra preferred two separate appeals, challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal. Both these appeals arise out of the one and the same judgment and between same parties and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment. Briefly stated the facts in both these appeals which are necessary for the decision of these appeals are thus ; On 10. 6. 1988 at about 1. 45 P. M. the claimant Harish Chandra was proceeding on a Moped TVS from Ginnani Mataji's Temple. He was proceeding from East to West, at that relevant time, Jeep No. RRF 2242 was driven by Respondent Ram Lal from South to North, collided with TVS Moped resulting thereby that the claimant sustained injuries on his person. He filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. The owner and driver who are original non-applicants before the learned Tribunal, filed their respective written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as 4 Issues. While deciding Issue No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant Harish Chandra was negligent to the extent of 60% and the Driver of the Jeep was negligent to the extent of 40%. While deciding the issue of quantum, the learned Tribunal computed the compensation in all for a sum of Rs. 89,440/- but in view of the finding on Issue No. 1, 40% of this amount which comes to Rs. 35,776/-, was awarded in favour of the claimant. In both the appeals challenge is made to the finding on Issue No. 1 which relates to the question of negligency.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. In para No. 10 of the claim petition, it was pleaded by the claimant that on 10. 6. 88 at about 1. 45 P. M. while he was proceeding on his Luna from Old Ginnani Mata's Temple, at that time, he was hit by a Jeep No. RRF 2242 which was driven by its driven Ram Lal rashly and negligently. Due to this accident, he sustained injuries on his legs and ribs. This fact was not specifically denied by the owner of the Jeep as Well as its driver. However, driving of jeep rashly and negligently was specifically denied in their respective written statements. It was further specifically pleaded that there was no negligency in driving the jeep on the part of its driver. He was driving the jeep according to traffic regulations at a slow speed on its correct side of the road, Suddenly the claimant came from wrong side of road. It was averred that the claimant came from right side of the road on a TVS moped, he was riding the moped rashly and negligently. He suddenly collided with the jeep and fell down. It was also pleaded that the said accident was solely on account of rash and negligent act of the claimant himself as he suddenly came from wrong side of the road. The claimant did not lodge the report of this occurrence with the police promptly. However, after about 15 days of the occurrence i. e. on 25. 06. 1988 police registered the F. I. R. on the basis of statement of claimant while he was admitted in the PBM Hospital, Bikaner. During investigation Site Inspection map was prepared, certified copy of which is on record, though it was not tendered in evidence. ;