CHUNILAL HANS Vs. UMAKANT MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by the father and the son injured in the same accident under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'). The claims were disposed of in one judgment. Therefore, these two appeals are also heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE accident and the injuries sustained by the father and the son are not in dispute. Mr. M.M. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants, assailed the justices of quantum of the compensation determined as well as the apportionment of the liability and compensation awarded.

(3.) THE tribunal has found that the driver of the motor -cycle (son), the driver of the truck and the driver of the fiat car, each had their own contributions for the unfortunate accident. He fixed the responsibility equally. However, the owner of the truck escaped the liability of paying any compensation and the claimants having been directed to bear one -third of the liability, one -third of the liability of the owner of the fiat car was directed to be paid by its insurer. The owner of the car and the insurer being satisfied with the one -third of the liability fixed, have not challenged the award. In absence of direction of the tribunal to the owner of the truck or its insurer to pay the balance one -third contribution, they have not preferred any appeal. Beth the injured have only preferred the present -appeals.