LOKESH Vs. ARJUN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of common judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand dt. 30.11.1995 accepting three claim petitions, and making an award of Rs. 51,600/ - in Claim Petition No. 274 filed by the claimant Fateh Lal while awarding a sum of Rs. 49,000/ - in each of the Claim Petition Nos. 275 and 276 filed on behalf of Manoj and Lokesh respectively. Three claim petitions were consolidated and evidence was recorded in Claim Case No. 274.

(2.) THE necessary facts are that on 15.03.1990 the three claimants being father and sons; Fateh Lal being father and other two being minor sons aged 8 years and 5 years respectively were traveling on motor cycle No. RRY -7745 from Molela to Khamnor. On way delinquent truck No. RJY -4993 driven by Arjun Lal was driven negligently, and hit against motor cycle causing injuries to all the three claimants. On these facts claiming permanent disablement to have been suffered by each of the three claimants different amounts have been claimed under different heads. The owner and driver remained ex -parte and the insurer only filed reply pleading ignorance about factual aspect. However, it was pleaded that Fateh Lal who was driving the motor cycle did not know to drive motor cycle, nor he was having valid driving licence. It was also pleaded that looking to the truck coming from opposite side he got disturbed, and could not control the motor cycle, and himself fell down. Alternative plea of contributory negligence was also taken.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned awards it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the learned Tribunal on the question of contributory negligence is not sustainable, as from a look at Ex. 2 the site plan, it is more than clear that there was no further space available for the claimant to take the motor cycle to further left, rather since there was a curve on the road the truck driver did not mind the motor cyclist, and hit him. At least to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence, the truck driver could have come in the witness box to depose about the fact situation available on the site, while no evidence in this regard has been led by any of the defendants. Even to the claimant PW 1 it has not been suggested in cross examination that there was any further space available towards the left to take the motor cycle in further left, while PW 1 had clearly deposed that he had already taken the motor cycle in the Kacha, and therefore, it cannot be said that the motor cyclist was guilty of any contributory negligence. It was then submitted that in any case so far the other two claimants Manoj and Lokesh are concerned, they cannot be said to have contributed in causing the accident, and therefore, no deduction on that count can be made in the compensation assessed to be payable to them. In the next place the award of consolidated amount of interest has been assailed, on the ground, that firstly there is no provision to award such consolidated amount of interest rather interest should have been awarded at any specified rate, and in the next place it is contended that it has wrongly been assumed by the learned Tribunal that the claimants had delayed the trial of the case.