MOHINI KAPUR,J. - (1.) BY Order dated 15th June, 1984, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarded a sum of Rs. 67,775, to the appellant, on account of the compensation due to injury received by him in the accident. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum has been allowed from 9th June, 1984. It has also been ordered that out of this sum, Rs. 50,000/ - alongwith interest on this amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company. The complainant is disatisfied with the compensation awarded to him and has preferred this appeal. The opposite party Hira Lal and Ranglal have preferred cross -objections in this appeal. They are the owner and driver of the truck, which was involved in the accident and their contention is that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself and as such he is not entitled to any compensation. Secondly, it is contended that the amount awarded as compensation is excessive.
(2.) ON 12th December, 1979; at about 3 or 3.30 pm in the afternoon, truck No. RJL 9715 driven by Hira Lal was going on road No. 6 in Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. At the crossing with road No. 5, a motor -cycle, driven by the appellant Ganesh Kant was coming from South to North. The direction of the truck was east to west and at this crossing the truck and motor -cycle collided with the result that the right foot of the claimant got crushed and his three fingers fell down at the site itself. He was taken to the hospital where his foot was amputated after an operation. In order to understand the manner in which the accident occurred, the version of both the parties may be first looked into. According to the claimant -appellant, when he was going on his motor -cycle RRG 4245 towards inter -Section of road No. 6 in Vishvakarma then truck No. RJL 9715 came from his right side at a very fast speed and collided with it. The truck -driver did not blow the horn. The claimant fell -down and received severe in juried and motor -cycle was also badly damaged. According to him the motor -cycle was on its left -side and at a very slow speed and the negligence was of the truck -driver who came at a fast speed without blowing the horn. According to the opposite party the truck was coming at a slow speed and was being driven very carefully and it was the motor -cyclist who was coming at a fast speed and was trying to cross the inter -Section in a careless and negligent manner and when he saw the truck at the inter -Section he lost his balance and same and collided with the truck. Besides the complainant who was on the motor -cycle and Hira Lal, the driver of the truck the only eye -witness in this case is A.W. 3, Narendra Kumar Kasliwal, who was coming on a cycle. His version is that the truck was coming at a fast speed, without blowing the horn and the front left side of the truck hit the front part of the motor cycle then the claimant Ganesh was dragged for about 15 to 20. This witness attended to the injured first to took him to the dispensary and then to hospital. He also lodged a report of this accident at the police station Vishvakarma, Jaipur, in which he stated that at about 3.00 pm, when he was going on the cycle -then truck No. RJL 9715 hit a motor -cycle driven by Ganesh Kant at the inter -Section of Road No. 6. He stated that the truck did not blow a horn. He simply reported the accident without assigning any negligence or rashness in driving to either party. The learned Tribunal, while assessing the cause of the accident after analying the evidence, came to the conclusion that the truck was at a speed, which was more than the ordinary speed, with which he ought to have driven when be was entering an inter -Section and he did not blow the horn. He was further of the opinion that the traffic entering the inter -Section from the east -side, cannot be seen from the southern road be cause of some factory at the intersection. On account of this it was necessary that he ought to have been very slow at the intersection. It was further observed that the motor -cycle was also at a very fast speed because on seeing the truck, it had tried to apply the brakes and had dragged for a distance of about 13'. It was the duty of the Motor -cyclist also to approach the inter -Section at a slow speed and merely because he had blown the horn his duty and responsibility did not come to an end. Considering this negligence of the motor -cyclist, he was held guilty of contributory negligence which led to the deduction in the compensation allowed to him.
(3.) LLEARNED Counsel for the claimant appellant has contended that A.W. 3 Narendra Kasliwal is an independent witness who was coming behind the motor -cyclist on a bicycle. It is contended that the version of this independent witness should be believed and when he has deposed that it was the truck driver who was driving rashly and hit the motor -cyclist and dragged it for some distance then it should be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck -driver. In other words, on the basis of the evidence of this witness, it is contended that the appellant cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence In this connection, both the sides have drawn my attention to Ex. P. 19, which is the site -plan prepared by the police after the accident. In my opinion, this map is more helpful in many -ways than the version of the witness, who may be prejudiced to some extent. According to the site -plan Ex 19 to which the witness Narendra Kumar has also attested A has been shown as the place where the motor -cycle and truck collided with each other and 'B' is the place were the motor -cycle was found after the accident. These two places are very near to each other. 'C' to 'D' is a distance of 13 feet on the road South to North, which shows the motor -cycle applied brake very hard and marks of it were left on the road. After the accident, the truck was standing a little ahead of the inter -Section. There was some blood at the place where the accident occurred and the fingers of the foot were lying. This plan shows that the place 'A' where the truck and motor -cycle collided is more or less in the middle of the road, when one go East to West but it is towards the South. It means that the truck -driver had just crossed the intersection while he was driving on the left of the road, while the motor -cyclist was entering the inter -Section from south and at that time the accident took place.;