JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of compensation to the Respondent. 2. A private carrier truck bearing registration number ORD 211 owned by the Orissa State Electricity Board (Appellant) was going on the Barchana-Darpan road in the afternoon of 15.11.1974. The Respondent, a young boy of 14, was proceeding towards Darpan on cycle. A claim was lodged for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on his behalf by his father-guardian on the allegation that the truck dashed against the cyclist and as a result of this collision, the claimant's right hand had to be amputated from the shoulder joint. 3. The Board admitted that there was a collision but maintains that it happened on account of negligence on the part of the cyclist and the driver had no responsibility for it. The condition of the road, it is alleged, was not good and the truck was, therefore, being driven at a slow speed. The claimant came from the opposite direction carrying another boy on his back and was not able to control the cycle. He lost balance on account of morrow having been spread on the road. The person sitting behind him jumped down as a result of which there was a jolt and the claimant fell down on his right side. As a result of such fall, the rear wheel of the truck ran over a part of his body. On these allegations, Appellant denied its liability in toto. 4. Four witnesses in all were examined in support of the claim while three witnesses were examined on behalf of the owner of the truck. The Tribunal found that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not throw any light about the manner of the accident, P.W. 3 is the claimant himself while P.W. 4 is his father. On the claimant's side the evidence as to how the accident happened is confined to the claimant. According to the claimant he was returning from Barchana to Dhanmandal by cycle and was carrying a friend Alekh by name on the carrier of the cycle. As he was proceeding, he saw the truck coming from the opposite side. He asked Alekh to get down and he did so at a time when the truck was still 300 cubits away. According to the claimant he was going on his left. As he was proceeding, he saw the truck coming from the opposite side. He asked Alekh to get down and he did so at a time when the truck was still 300 cubits away. According to the claimant he was going on his left. While the truck came close, it suddenly moved towards the right side to allow certain persons on the road to pass and when it moved to the right side, its front side came in contact with the bicycle as a result of which he fell down. The truck ran over a part of his body and he became unconscious. His hand had to be amputated from almost the shoulder joint. He also sustained some head injuries. He has admitted in cross-examination that the road was bad and morrum had been spread. The defence case that Alekh jumped from the cycle after the front portion of the truck had already crossed the cyclist and on account of such jumping the claimant lost his balance was put to the claimant, but he has denied it. 5. On the side of the owner of the truck, a local person who is said to have seen the accident, the helper and the driver of the truck have been examined as O.P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. O.P.W. 1 has stated: ...The road was narrow and seeing the truck approaching another boy who was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle jumped towards left. Consequently the victim boy who was riding the bicycle could not keep balance and fell against the back portion of the data of the truck while attempting to keep balance holding the dala by stretching his right hand. The bicycle was not damaged. The truck was coming slowly. According to this witness, the truck was only at a distance of six cubits when Alekh jumped from the back of the cycle. He has further admitted that he could not say which part of the truck came in contact with the boy. O.P.W. 2 is the helper of the truck. According to him, Alekh also jumped out after the front portion of the truck had passed. He has admitted that the boys were at a distance of eighty feet from the truck when they were visible. The road was narrow and in a bad condition. Metals had been stacked on either side. O.P.W. 2 is the helper of the truck. According to him, Alekh also jumped out after the front portion of the truck had passed. He has admitted that the boys were at a distance of eighty feet from the truck when they were visible. The road was narrow and in a bad condition. Metals had been stacked on either side. He has clearly stated that it would not be correct to suggest that the boy was not able to keep balance properly. Both the cyclist as also the truck did not slow down. There was no road-space on the left of the truck. O.P.W. 3 is the driver. He has stated that there was a five feet road space on the right side of the truck. The speedometer as also the hand-brake of the truck were out of order. 6. It is clear from the evidence that the road was in a bad state; metals had been spread out and had not been pressed; two boys were on the cycle and the cycle had been seen by the driver of the truck from a distance which was sufficient to bring the truck to a stop; the driver should have been aware of the fact that the road being in a bad state, there was possibility of the young boy on the cycle not being able to maintain balance. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the driver to slow down or even stop the vehicle while allowing the cyclist to pass. What would amount to rash and negligent driving is dependent upon several other connected facts. On the evidence, there can be no doubt that the truck should have moved very cautiously and if necessary should have even stopped running. Simultaneously, the cyclist should have been also more careful. He had asked Alekh to get down obviously because with him on his back, he was not able to control the cycle. The claimant must have known the condition of the road and therefore, for his own safety, he should have got down from the cycle. This apparently seems to be a case, where both sides are at fault and the responsibility can be apportioned on moiety basis. The learned Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 35,000/-. Nothing has been argued before me which would lead me to take a different view. This apparently seems to be a case, where both sides are at fault and the responsibility can be apportioned on moiety basis. The learned Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 35,000/-. Nothing has been argued before me which would lead me to take a different view. I think, in the facts of the case and for the reasons already indicated, the claimant should be awarded fifty per cent of the compensation found payable. 7. I would accordingly direct that the Respondent shall be paid compensation of Rs. 17,500/- (seventeen thousand and five hundred) in place of Rs. 35,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs. 17,500/- shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of application claiming compensation till payment. The appeal of the Board is allowed in part. The Appellant is called upon to pay the money to the Respondent within one month from to-day, failing which the amount is recoverable as a public demand under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.