(1.) IN a motor accident on 06. 10. 2000 at about 10 a. m. on Narayanpur Airport Road under Airport Police Station, the appellant herein sustained injuries. The vehicle, which was responsible for the accident belonged to Border Security Force (for short 'bsf'), which was a Maruti Gypsi bearing the registration No. MZ-02/0238. That the appellant sustained injury in the accident involving the above noted vehicle is not in dispute. The dispute between the appellant and the BSF is with regard to the manner or the way the accident had taken place. According to the appellant, he along with his brother-in-law was waiting for a bus when the said vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner had dashed them and thereafter knocked against a telephone post on the extreme eastern side of the road. The appellant sustained fracture in his right leg for which he had to be under prolonged treatment initially in the G. B. Hospital from 06. 10. 2000 to 16. 11. 2000. This version of the appellant has been disputed by the two witnesses examined by the BSF. The first witness was the Assistant Commandant of the BSF on the date of accident. He admitted that the said vehicle driven by Amar Singh (OPW 2) made an accident near the Airport Gate. An inquiry was made by the BSF, which showed that while the Gipsy was running at a speed of 40 km/hour, a scooter with three riders including the appellant was at a speed of 60 km/hour and as a matter of fact, that scooter had dashed the Gypsy. The driver Amar Singh had also sustained injury and had to be admitted into the hospital. A FIR was lodged following which an investigation was done by the local police. In the same tune the other witness Amar Singh (OPW 2) blamed the scooter for the accident, which according to him, dashed against the Gypsy. According to him, to avoid accident he pressed the emergency brake, which, however, failed. He admitted in cross that a criminal case was filed against him, which was under investigation and he had obtained bail in connection with that case.
(2.) CONFRONTED with this rival situation as has been discerned from the evidence of the parties, the learned Trial Court came to hold that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident as they collided each other. Proceeding from this finding, the learned Tribunal after assessing Rs. 1,56,500/- as the amount of compensation directed that the appellant herein would be entitled to only 50% of the same, i. e. Rs. 78,250/- as he was responsible for contributory negligence.
(3.) I have heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Asstt. S. G. for the respondents.