VERMA, J. - (1.) - All these three Appeal (Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 158/86 & 159/86 filed by Shrawan Kumar, and 4/87 filed by Smt. Manni Devi & Others) are directed against a common award dated the 22. 05. 1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case Nos. 101/82 & 118/82. Since these appeals arise out of common award and self-same accident, they have been heard together by common consent and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of Shrawan Kumar is that on January 7, 1982 at 4 p. m. he was driving a motor-cycle bearing number RRL 2649 and was proceeding from Jaipur to Sushilpura at Jaipur-Ajmer Road; one, Jagdish was riding pillion of the motor-cycle. It is pleaded that when the motor-cycle crossed 'amaani Shaw Nalah' it was collided by bus, RRB' 6022 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, RSRTC ). This bus was being driven by Poonam Chand. The case of Shrawan Kumar is that the bus was being driven by Poonam Chand in a reckless and negligent manner, with the result, it dashed against the motor-cycle throwing Jagdish from pillion. Shrawan Kumar and Jagdish sustained grievous injuries in this accident, which resulted in death of Jagdish. Shrawan Kumar filed motor accident claim case No. 118/82 claiming compensation for the injuries received by him, while Smt. Manni Devi and other legal representatives of Jagdish instituted claim case No. 101/82. In claim petition of Manni Devi and other legal representatives of Jagdish, compensation was claimed against the RSRTC and its driver, Poonam Chand, as also against Shrawan Kumar & registered owner of the motor-cycle, Bhuramal. Both the claim petitions were contested on behalf of the RSRTC & Poonam Chand. Factum of the accident was admitted but it was denied that Poonam Chand was driving the bus rashly & negligently. It was pleaded that Shrawan Kumar was driving the motor- cycle at an excessive speed and he could not control the motor- cycle which dashed against the bus, which had already been stopped by Poonam Chand because Poonam Chand had seen the motor- cycle approaching at the excessive speed. The RSRTC & Poonam Chand disclaimed any liability to pay compensation, though it was not disputed that Shrawan Kumar sustained injuries in the accident and Jagdish met his death as a result of the accident. Both the claim petitions were consolidated before the learned Claims Tribunal and were heard together. In support of the claim, the claimants examined Smt. Manni Devi (AW 1), Dalpat Singh (AW2), Dr. R. C. Joshi (AW3), Chandra Shekhar Danga (AW4), Shrawan Kumar (AW5), & Seduram (AW6 ). Certain documentary evidence was also produced on record. On behalf of the RSRTC and Poonam Chand, Poonam Chand (NAW1), Baluram (NAW2), and Hanuman Chand (NAW 3), were examined. The contesting respondents did not produce any documentary evidence.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for all the sides, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that Poonam Chand was driving the bus rashly & negligently. However, he has further held that Shrawan Kumar was also liable because he was also driving the motor-cycle rashly & negligently. Upon such findings, he held that Shrawan Kumar was guilty of contributory negligence. As regards compensation as against Rs. 2,13,000/- claimed by Smt. Manni Devi & other legal representatives of Jagdish, the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000/- details thereof shall be given later on in this judgment. Shrawan Kumar had claimed Rs. 2,11,000/ -. Learned Judge of the Tribunal however, found Shrawan Kumar entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- but, on account of the contributory negligence, held him entitled to award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- only. The amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest @ 12% p. a. also. Certain ancillary directions were also given. Aggrieved, Smt. Manni Devi and other legal representatives of Jagdish have filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4/87 while Shrawan Kumar has filed civil misc. appeal Nos. 158/86 and 159/86. ;