(1.) THIS order will dispose of F.A.O. No. 367 of 1977 and cross -objection No. 5/C -II of 1978 in F.A.O. No. 367 of 1977 which are directed against the same award of the Tribunal.
(2.) THE Learned Counsel for Jaspal Bajwa and her children has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly found that the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence. The contention is without merit. The deceased was going from the side of Jullundur to Batala on a scooter whereas truck No. HRA 8617 came from the opposite direction near village Ramidi. There, was no other traffic on the road at the time of the accident. The evidence led by the claimant is that the truck was being driven in the middle of the road whereas the scooter was being driven on the left side of the road. The deceased could very well see the truck coming from the opposite side. He or his scooter was not run over by the truck. The scooter and the truck hit each other with the result that the deceased along with the scooter fell down and suffered injuries. It is obvious that the deceased could have very easily avoided the impact with the truck by taking the scooter to his further left. He was hit by the truck because he did not so. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the scooter at the time of the accident appears to be correct.