THE TOURIST COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. Vs. DR. OM PRAKASH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I shall dispose of two F.A.O. Nos. 81 and 145 of 1971 which arise out of the same award of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, dated February 17, 1971.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are that Dr. Om Parkash claimant was riding on his motor bicycle from Ambala City towards Model Town, Ambala on May 15, 1966. When he was on the road inter -section near Polytechnic he was hit by bus bearing No. PNE 9009 which was coming from Grand Trunk Road and was proceeding to the Bus Stand, Ambala. The bus belonged to the Tourist Co -operative Transport Society Ltd, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as the Society) and was being driven by Mewa Singh driver, Respondent No. 1. It was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Ambala Cantt, (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The claimant filed a claim of Rs. 50,000/ - against the Respondents on the ground that the accident took place on account of negligent and rash driving of Respondent No 1, who was driving the bus at a high speed. The claimant suffered a permanent deformity in his left leg as there is stiffness in his knee, on account of Which he has started limping. The Respondent denied the allegations of the claimant and contested the claim application. They, inter alia, pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. It was he who struck his motor bicycle against the bus. The claimant while crossing the road intersection did not blow horn and entered the same at a very high speed. The claimant has not suffered any monetary loss. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence held that the accident took place on account of negligence of both the claimant and the driver in which the former was negligent to the extent of 25 per cent whereas the latter to the extent of 75 per cent, and the claimant suffered total damages to the extent of Rs. 29,000/ -. The Tribunal consequently held that the claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 21,750/ - and awarded him the said amount.

(3.) THE second contention of Mr. Suri is that the Appellants were not allowed to lead full evidence. He has not been able to substantiate the said allegation. He has not drawn my attention to any order by which his evidence was illegally closed. This contention, therefore, has no force and is rejected.