JUDGMENT 1. These are two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act') against the award dated 16 .12.1975 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City in cases No. 26/74 and 27/74 respectively. Since both the claim petitions have been decided by one common award, they are disposed of by one common judgment. 2. Appellant Harish Chand in appeal No. 72/76 on 4.2.1976 at about 3.00 p m, was driving a scooter and was coming from the side of Khasa Kothi towards Ajmeri Gate. Smt. Rajkumari, appellant in appeal No. 1 /10/76 who is daughter of Harish Chand, at that time, was sitting on the pillion of the scooter. The case of appellant Harish Chand is that when the scooter was opposite Syndicate Bank, he gave a signal with one hand to turn to the right for taking petrol from the Indian Oil Petrol Pump situated opposite Syndicate Bank. When he had taken his turn to the right and had travelled some distance, a car bearing No. WGG 444 driven by O.P. 1 Jugal kishore and owned by O.P. 2 came from the side of Ajmeri Gate at a fast speed and collided with the scooter, as a result of which both the appellants fell down on the ground and received injuries. The appellants alleged that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car by Jugal kishore respondent. Both the appellants were taken to the hospital and on 8th February, 1974, Dr. D.P. Gupta examined the injuries of appellant Rajkamari and found the following injuries: (1) Plaster on left fore-arm and hand. (2) Abrasion 2 cm. X 2 cm. on outer aspect of upper 1/4th of the left leg. (3) Abrasion 2 cm. X 2 cm on front of upper 1/4th of right leg. In the opinion of the doctor, except injury No. 1 for which opinion was reserved till the receipt of X-ray all the injuries were simple and were caused by blunt weapon. He has also deposed that X-ray revealed that there were fractures of lower ends of radius and ulna and, therefore, injury No. 1 was gravious. The injuries of Harish Chand were also examined and the Doctor found the following injuries : (1) Abrasion 5 cm. X 1 cm. on anterior aspect of left leg upper ⅓rd. He has also deposed that X-ray revealed that there were fractures of lower ends of radius and ulna and, therefore, injury No. 1 was gravious. The injuries of Harish Chand were also examined and the Doctor found the following injuries : (1) Abrasion 5 cm. X 1 cm. on anterior aspect of left leg upper ⅓rd. (2) Swelling 6 c m X 4 cm. on anterior aspect of left leg upper ⅓rd and lower part of knee joint. On X-ray fracture of left patella and upper ends of left tibia and fabula were found. Appellant Harish Chand was admitted in the ward of Dr P.K Sethi Professor of Orthopedics in S.M.S Hospital, Jaipur. He found that Harishchand had fracture of left patella and fracture of left leg bone. His patella was removed. According to appellant Harish Chand he was drawing Rs. 730/- p.m. at the time of accident and he had to be on leave for 3 months due to the injuries. He put up his claim of total amount of RS. 1 07,690/- under various heads. Appellant Rajkumari in another petition claimed Rs. 17,000/- under various heads Both the petitions were contested by the respondent According to him, the driver of the scooter was rash and negligent. I he scooter was coming from the side of Khasa Kothi and proceeding towards Panchbatti on M.I. Road. Harishchand all of sudden took an abrupt turn towards right for petrol without giving any in indication of turning in advance as per the requirement, of Motor Vehicles Rules and without negotiating the authorised road crossing while turning to Petrol Pump. which resulted in the scooter dashing against the car. The car was driven at normal speed with due care and attention The appellants were taken in the same car to the hospital for treatment. At the time of accident the motor car was not insured any where, hence the Insurance Company is not a party to the proceedings. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues in Misc. case No. 27/74 : 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Car WGG 444 by the non-petitioner ? OR Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of scooter R.R.L. 3232 on the pillion seat of which. Smt. Rajkumari was seated as stated in reply to para 10 of the petition ? case No. 27/74 : 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Car WGG 444 by the non-petitioner ? OR Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of scooter R.R.L. 3232 on the pillion seat of which. Smt. Rajkumari was seated as stated in reply to para 10 of the petition ? 2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and is entitled to compensation of Rs. 17,000/- as stated in para 11 of the petition ? P. o To what extent are the different non-petitioners liable to pay compensation ? P. 4. Relief ? In Civil Misc. Case No. 26/74, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the non-petitioner No. I of the Car No. WGG 444 ? P. OR The petitioner himself was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter No. RRL 3232, as stated in reply to para 10 of the petition ? NP 2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in this accident and is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,07,690/- on account of compensation ? P. 3. To what extent are the different on-petitioners liable to pay compensation ? p. 4. Relief ? Both the parties examined witnesses in their support and the appellants also filed certain documents. After hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent and, therefore issue No. 1 in both the claim petitions was decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. Regarding Issue No. 2 in the petition of appellant Harish Chand, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the sum to be awarded to Harish Chand comes to Rs. 18,190/-, but as the finding on issue No. 1 was against him, therefore, he was not entitled to receive this amount. In the petition, filed of Rajkumari, the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2 regarding compensation, observed that Dr. D.P. Gupta had opined that "the injury of this kind ordinarily should not leave a permanent or partial disability, and awarded a sum of Rs. In the petition, filed of Rajkumari, the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2 regarding compensation, observed that Dr. D.P. Gupta had opined that "the injury of this kind ordinarily should not leave a permanent or partial disability, and awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and physical pain suffered by Rajkumari as a result of the accident, but since decision on issue No. 1 was against her, therefore, she was not entitled to receive this amount. 4. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on record. 5. PW, 1 Raj Kumari has stated in her statement that while the scooter was turned to Petrol Pump on the right side, it was slowed down and she gave signal by protruding her right hand to take a turn towards the Petrol Pump. A car, which was coming from the opposite side in fast speed came and struck the scooter, due to which she suffered fracture in the right arm and other injuries. In cross, she has denied that there was a bus in front of the scooter. She has stated that the scooter had crossed half the road while turning to the Petrol Pump when the accident took place. She saw the car from a distance of about 100 yards. 6. PW/2 Harish Chand has stated in his statement that he had protruded his right hand to take turn towards the petrol pump when a car coming from the opposite side came and struck the scooter, as a result of which he fell down along with the scooter and suffered 3 fractures and also remained in hospital for the period of 3 months as indoor patient His patella has been removed by operation. The car was coming in fast speed. He has stated that he walks with aasa after the accident and feels pain in walking as his patella has been removed. He cannot sit properly for his natural calls. When he stands on the left foot, he feels pain because the left foot has become weak. In cross he has stated that the accident took place in middle of the road and he had seen the car coming from about 100-150 yards. He has stated that the road crossing was 50-60 yards away from the place of accident. He fell down from the scooter. In cross he has stated that the accident took place in middle of the road and he had seen the car coming from about 100-150 yards. He has stated that the road crossing was 50-60 yards away from the place of accident. He fell down from the scooter. After accident, the scooter was in front of the car and the car stopped striking with the scooter. After the accident the car could move about 6 inches. He has stated that earlier than this, no accident had taken place from his scooter. 7. P W /3 Dr. P.K. Sethi has stated that the patella of Harish Chand was removed after operation. For his opinion whether the applicant had permanent disability or partial disability, the witness expressed that for this purpose further examination of the applicant was necessary. The statement was, therefore, reserved and he was examined on 13th August, 1975. He stated that Harish Chand has following problems which are directly the consequences of the injuries: 1. Shortening of the left leg by half inch. 2. Limitation of knee bending to 125 degree (on his normal side knee bending is possible to 145 degree). He has stated that it is unlikely that after lapse of 1/1/2 years, the knee flexion will improve. This is. in other words, a permanent disability. The joint surfaces have been damaged on account of fracture and this would make his knee more vulnerable to the development of ostaoarthritis at a later date. His knee may give him some trouble as he grows old. The report prepared by him is Ex. P. 5. 8. PW/5 Digpal Singh is a motor mechanic and has examined the car after accident His report is Ex AW/5-l. He has stated that the brake of the car worked after pressing it for 2 times. 9. PW/7 Surendra Kumar has stated in his statement that at the relevant time when the accident took place he was going on his cycle from the side of Khasa Kothi to M.I. Road. He has stated that he saw Harish Chand, present in the court, driving scooter and when he turned towards the petrol pump he gave signal by protruding his hand and soon he turned his scooter, a car came in fast speed from the side of Radio Station and struck the scooter. He has stated that he saw Harish Chand, present in the court, driving scooter and when he turned towards the petrol pump he gave signal by protruding his hand and soon he turned his scooter, a car came in fast speed from the side of Radio Station and struck the scooter. The left front portion of the car struck the left front portion of the scooter, which resulted in accident. In cross, he has stated that the road was divided by wide lines into two parts, at the time of accident. He has also stated that the scooter driver was coming signaling with his hand from a distance of 20'-25'. He has stated that he knows brother of Harish Chand. 10. OPW I Jugal Kishore has stated in his statement that he was driving the car at very slow speed and one Dushyant was sitting along with him. He has stated that as soon as he crossed the road crossing where four roads meet (Chauraha), he saw a bus coming from the side of Station. Soon the bus crossed his car a scooter turned from the side of Syndicate Bank. He could not see coming the scooter nor could he see the scooter turning towards the Petrol Pump. He could not see whether the scooter driver had given any signal by hand by protruding his hand for turning towards the Petrol Pump. In cross, he has stated that the speed of the car was 10-15 miles per hour. He has stated that the road is about 100 foot wide at the place of accident and it is divided into 2 parts by a wide dividing line. He was driving on his left side and inside the dividing line. He has also stated that half of the road on his right side was lying vacant. 11. OPW/2 Dushyant has stated that Jugal Kishore was driving the car carefully. All of sudden a bus came from the side of station and crossed their car. Soon after the bus had passed, a scooter came towards the Petrol Pump and front portion of the car struck the left portion of the scooter, Jugal Kishore applied the brakes immediately on taking place of the accident. 12. From the above evidence, it will be seen that the driver of the scooter while turning to the petrol pump had given signal by protruding his right hand. 12. From the above evidence, it will be seen that the driver of the scooter while turning to the petrol pump had given signal by protruding his right hand. Appellant Rajkumari had also given signal with her hand. Jugal Kishore, driver has stated that a bus was coming infront of the scooter, therefore, he could not see the scooter coming behind the bus and it was only when the bus crossed they, he could see the scooter. He also could not see the signal given by the scooter driver by protruding his hand He has stated that he saw the bus after crossing the inter section of two roads (Chaurcha). It is significant that no cross has been made on this aspect of the matter from the driver of the scooter Shri Harishchand. If the respondent wanted to put up this story in his defence then it was absolutely necessary on his part to have crossed the appellant Hanish Chand regarding this aspect of the occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be held that there was any bus infront of the scooter on account of which the respondent could not see the scooter or the signal given by the scooter driver by protruding his hand while turning towards the Petrol Pump. 13. It has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the car could not be said to be coming in fast speed as it stopped only at a distance of about 6 inches after the accident. It will be seen from the evidence discussed above that left front portion of the car struck with the scooter and the scooter fell down on the road along with its occupant. Therefore, the scooter came infront of the car and was in stricking position In this position naturally it is not possible for the car to move for long distance when a heavy vehicle like scooter is lying in its front. Therefore, it was natural for it to stop it suddenly at a distance of few inches. This does not prove that the vehicle was running at slow speed, more so on the face of other evidence about its fast speed. It has been argued that the scooter did not turn from authorised crossing while moving towards the Petrol pump. At the relevant time the road was not divided into 2 parts by stones as it is found at present. It has been argued that the scooter did not turn from authorised crossing while moving towards the Petrol pump. At the relevant time the road was not divided into 2 parts by stones as it is found at present. At that time it was divided only by white dividing lines. In front of the Petrol Pump there is no inter section of four roads and the only road opposite to the petrol pump is one on which passport Office is situated and which leads to meet the Station Road at end. Therefore. there is nothing like authorised turning point at the place as argued by learned counsel for respondent It has been further argued that mere giving signal by protruding of hand is not enough and according to signal - mentioned in 11th Schedule of the Act, it was necessary to not only to extend his right arm in horizental position, but it was also necessary to show the palm of the hand. It has already come on record that the scooter driver did give signal by protruding out his hand and no body crossed him on his point whether palm of the hand had also been turned to the front. Moreover, when the arm is extended out that the vehicle is turning towards that direction is enough to indicate the intention of driver of the vehicle to go towards that side. It may be pointed out that in the 10th Schedule of the Act, Regulation No. 6 lays down that the driver of the motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a toad inter section, a road junction or road coiner and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he was become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon It was, therefore, the duty of the car driver to have not only slowed down while approaching the road inter-section but should have made certain to become aware that by driving further he will cause no Granger to the safety of other persons on the road An effort has been made to show that the driver of the vehicle could not see the signal given by the scooter driver to turn towards the Petrol Pump as, there was a bus infront of the scooter. The respondent has absolutely failed to prove this, but even if for the sake of argument it may be taken that a bus did come infront of the scooter, it was all the more necessary for the car driver to have absolutely slowed down his vehicle before proceeding further to see that there is no other vehicle or person behind the bus, which is not in position to see because of the size of the bus. This itself proves that the car driver was absolutely negligent in driving the vehicle and was careless towards the safety of other using the same road. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the case of Jagabandhu Naik and another v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation 1977 A C J. 541 . In this case a cyclist was about 16' ahead the bus and both were moving in the same direction. The bus struck the cyclist when he turned towards his right. It was observed that it was the duty of the driver of the motor vehicle to look out in all directions, it is his duty to adjust the speed in such a manner that in case of necessity he could stop the vehicle in stanteneously. If the driver had performed this duty which is normally expected of him, fateful accident could have been avoided. Even if another user of the road is negligent to some extent, the driver must exercise due skill to avoid consequences of such negligence. In this case it was held that the driver of the bus was guilty of rash and negligent driving, on account of which the accident took place. Reference in this case has also been made of 1976 A.C J. 368 in which also similar observations nave been made. In the case of (2) Ishwar Devi v. Rewati Raman (1978 ACJ 340) , the motor cyclist had seen from a distance of 30-40 paces that a person was walking on the foot-path .The motor cycle driver deposed that he was driving at the speed of 10-15 Kl. mtre. per hour at the relevant time and he applied brakes only when the accident took place. It was held that the motor cyclist could hive with little care avoided the accident and he was held to be guilty of negligence. mtre. per hour at the relevant time and he applied brakes only when the accident took place. It was held that the motor cyclist could hive with little care avoided the accident and he was held to be guilty of negligence. In the present case also it has come in evidence that the car driver applied brakes only after the accident. In the case of (3) Dull Chand v. Delhi Administration (1976 ACJ 125) , the deceased was going on a cycle and as he turned to the right in order to cross the road a bus came from the opposite direction and struck the cycle. The bus-driver did not care to notice the deceased coming from his right side. Even though he turned to the right after giving signal with his hand. The argument of the bus driver was that it was reaching at the speed not exceeding 25 miles per hour .The defence of the driver of the bus was that he did not notice the deceased at all and it was only when the deceased struck that he applied the brake and brought the bus to a stop. It was held by their Lordhips of the Supreme Court that the driver was guilty of negligent driving. 15. From the law discussed above, it is clear that it was the duty of the driver to have been careful at the road inter-section and to have kept effective control on his motor vehicle to avoid any accident while some another person was turning towards another side after giving due signal for the same. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the matter of (4) Buchan Singh and others v. Dharampal and others 1983 A. C. J. 686 , in which a car hit the cyclist while he was crossing the busy road. The car was on its right side. The court came to the conclusion that no care or caution was taker, by the cyclist while crossing the road Therefore, it was held that the driver of the car was not guilty of rash and negligent driving. However. this case is not relevant to the facts of the present case, in which the scooter driver did his duty of protruding his right hand for quite a distance to indicate his desire to turn towards the Petrol Pump. Moreso. However. this case is not relevant to the facts of the present case, in which the scooter driver did his duty of protruding his right hand for quite a distance to indicate his desire to turn towards the Petrol Pump. Moreso. there is not much traffic on the road. In the matter of (5) Ramjivan Vs State of U. P. 1972 A.C.J. 467 , a boy was hit at the distance of 8-20 paces. It was held that since the car stopped within 8-10 paces, the driver could not be held to be guilty of high speed. In the present case the scooter fell down infront of the car in sticking position, therefore, it was not possible for the car to move further for any distance. In this way, this ruling is also not relevant for the case under consideration. Reliance is also placed on (6) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sabbir Ahmed, 1972 A. C. J. 465 (Delhi) . Evidently the facts of this case are totally different from the one under appeal. In the case of (7) Satya Devi v. Union of India , a truck took sudden turn to the road. A motor cyclist coming from the opposite direction was struck and died. It was held that the driver of the truck should not have taken a sudden turn and therefore, was held guilty of negligence. In the present case, the driver of the scooter did not take any sudden turn towards the Petrol Pump, gave proper signal by protruding his arm for sufficient time to indicate his desire of turning. There- fore, the facts of this case are also not applicable to the one under consideration. The case reported in 1969 A. C. J. 286 is also of a vehicle taking a sudden turn, which evidently is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the driver of the car was guilty of rash and negligent driving and responsible for the accident that took place .In appeal No. 72/76 filed by Harish Chand, while admitting the appeal on 11 .8.1976 an order was made by this Court to reduce the claim under appeal to the amount of Rs. 18,190 awarded to the claimant by the learned Tribunal. 18,190 awarded to the claimant by the learned Tribunal. No arguments have been made by the respondents to controvert the finding of the Tribunal and reduce this amount, I, therefore, hold that appellant Harish Chand will be entitled to receive this amount of award of Rs. 18,190/- from the respondent. It is pertinent to mention that owner of the car was not careful even to get his motor vehicle insured against the 3rd party risk, which was mandatory on him to do as laid down under Chapter 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the claim was dismissed by the Tribunal, I hold that the appellant (Harish Chand) shall be entitled to get interest on this amount of Rs. 18,190/- at the rate of 12% p. a. with effect from 30.4.1976 the day on which appeal was filed in this court, till realisation of the amount. 19. In appeal No. 110/76 filed by Smt. Rajkumari, she has claimed amount of Rs. 17,000/- as compensation and damages, but the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and damages and none of the parties have pressed either for increase or reduce the said amount. I, therefore, hold that Smt. Rajkumari shall be entitled to receive Rs. 2000/- from the respondent and also interest on this amount at the rate of 12% p. a. from 21.7.1976, the day on which appeal was filed in this court, till the realisation of the amount. 20. Each of the appellant shall get Rs. 300/- as cost of appeals. Appeals allowed as indicated above.Appeals allowed. *******