K.C.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THROUGH this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 30.9.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000 in favour of Surajmal, driver of the truck involved in the accident, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the award sought to be modified. In the claim petition, the claimant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,52,000 under various heads. The learned Judge, on consideration of evidence and material available on record and having concluded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck and bus. On 21.9.1988, truck No. DIG 3279 and bus No. UHN 2715 collided with each other at Ajmer Road. In the accident few persons died and few persons including the present claimant respondent sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal having concluded that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, awarded compensation of Rs. 66,000 for the injuries sustained by injured claimant. Since it was a case of contributory negligence, the Tribunal held the injured entitled to receive Rs. 33,000 i.e., 50% of the amount so awarded. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000 for the expenses incurred on treatment. In all a sum of Rs. 45,000 were awarded. While awarded compensation, the Tribunal held the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company liable to pay the award of compensation to the injured claimant.
(3.) THE only grievance of the appellant Insurance Company is that Tribunal has committed error in making the Insurance Company and the owner of the truck liable to pay compensation. Both should have been absolved for the simple reason that injured Surajmal himself was negligent in driving the truck and had contributed in the accident, therefore, he is not entitled to receive any compensation from owner of the truck and its Insurance Company. I find much substance in the above submission. It was a case of contributory negligence and since 50% negligence was of the driver of bus belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the claimant, who was driver of the truck was also negligent to the extent of 50%, therefore, the injured claimant would be entitled to receive compensation only from the respondent No. 2 namely the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.;