- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar in M.A.C.T. Case No. 76/2005.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed on 11.1.2004 on the ground that the claimant was going on the motor cycle from Punjab side to Sadulshahar. At 12.30 noon, near canal link channel, respondent no.1 was driving the truck No. RJ 13 -G 2285 in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the claimant has sustained injuries. FIR has been lodged at the concerned police station. Challan was also filed against respondent no.1 and the claimant filed a claim petition for appropriate compensation which was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and 40% liability has been fastened on the claimant holding that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of the claimant. The contention of the present appellant is that the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding 40% negligence of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has categorically gave a finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck and, admittedly, after investigation challan has also been filed against the driver of the truck. The only reason for holding the negligence of the present appellant is that he was not holding a valid licence. No fact has been produced before the learned Tribunal that the claimant was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently or he has contributed in any way for causing the accident, hence the finding of the learned tribunal is erroneous and liability of 40% which has been fastened on the present appellant should be quashed.
(3.) PER contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no fault in the finding and the compensation awarded. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was coming from the opposite direction and they collied face to face. Hence the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the present appellant was also negligent and he has contributed in the accident. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the record of the learned Tribunal.;