JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals (Appeals 11/83 and 27/83) arise out of common award therefore, they are disposed by common order. 2. The brief facts giving rise to both the appeals are that on 7-H977 in the evening a j, Jeep No. 74-B/12369-H, of army was coming from Barmer to Balotra. The Jeep was driven by Constable Chandagi Ram (P.W. 3). At about 6.45 p.m. when they were near the V village Sindari about 5-6 kilometres away from the Balotra, they saw one truck No. RJQ 9886 coming with the excessive speed in a negligent manner. The claimant Major Jagjit Singh asked the driver to stand on the right side and the driver of the jeep signalled through the light to the truck driver. But truck driver still could not contain himself and struck against the jeep, which was stationary. As a result of this accident the Major Jagjit Singh (Claimant No. 1), his wife Mst. Shabnam (Claimant No. 2) and his daughter Namrata (Claimant No. 3) received various injuries. The first information report was filed at Police Station Sindari, Balotra and all the victims were immediately taken to the Hospital for treatment. The present claim was filed by Major, his wife Shabnam and daughter Namrata. The another claim was also filed by Union of India for damage to the jeep. Major Jagjit Singh has claimed that he was drawing a sum of- Rs, 2,000/- per month. As a result of this injury his mobility has been checked, like-wise Shabnam received injuries on her head, right ear end fracture on her right leg. She cannot walk freely, claim has also been filed by Namrata daughter of the Jagjit Singh on account of damage of her teeth. Thus, total Rs. 30,300/- was claimed for compensation against truck driver and Insurance Company. The claim was also filed by Union of India for damage to jeep to the extent of Rs. 8,740.64 paisa against the truck driver Ratna Ram and Insurance Company, Both the claims were opposed by Ratna Ram as well as Insurance Company and it was pleaded that as a matter of fact the accident has not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck, accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep as such neither Ratna Ram nor Insurance Company is entitled to indemnify the claimant. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, six issues were framed by the Tribunal, which reads as under: " 1- D;k fnukad 7&1&77 dh ckaMesj&ckyks[kjk lM+d ij V~d ua0 vkj0ts0D;w0 9880 o feyV~h thi ua0 ch0,0 74 cksa 12369&,p0 ds chp nq?kZVuk mDr V~d vFkok thi vFkok nksuksa okgu ds pkyd dh ykijokgh xQyr o vlko/kkuh ds dkj.k gqbZ gS\ 2- D;k thi uacj ch0,0ch0 12369&,p0 dks Hkh txthr flag irk jgk Fkk vFkok JhpUnxhjke M~kbZoj pyk jgk Fkk\ 3- D;k mDr thi o V~d {kfrxzLr gq, vkSj thi ds ekfyd 8740&64 o V~d ds ekfyd 34042@& crkSj {kfriwfrZ ds ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ vxj gS rks fdl&fdl ls fdruh jde\ 4- D;k Hkkjr ljdkj dk Dyse vof/k ds vUnj gS\ 5- D;k Jh txthrflag] Jherh 'kcue o dqekjh uezrk {kfriwfrZ ds 30300@& :i;s ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ vxj rks fdl&fdl ls fdruh jde\ 6- i{kdkj fdl vuqrks"k ds ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA " 3. So far as the Issue No. 1 is concerned that the Learned Member Tribunal held that both of the driver of the truck as well as the driver of the jeep are responsible. The Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the claimant. So far as the issue No. 3 is concerned it was decided against the owner of the jeep as well as truck and held that neither the owner of jeep nor the owner of the truck are entitle to be compensated for damage caused to their vehicles The Issue No. 4 was decided against the Union of India as it has failed to prove the actual damages and it was found that the claim of Union of India was barred by time. So far as the Issue No. 5 is concerned learned Member Tribunal awarded the compensation to all the the three claimant namely Jagjit Singh sum of Rs. 4,300/- (claimant No. 1) claimant No. 2 Shabnam sum of Rs- 10,000/- and claimant No. 3 Namrata Kumari sum of Rs. 2,000/- for their injuries. So far as Issue No. 6 was decided against Union of India and the claim of Union of India was rejected. 4. Aggrieved against this award, Ratna Ram has filed the present appeal which has been registered as S.B. Misc. 2,000/- for their injuries. So far as Issue No. 6 was decided against Union of India and the claim of Union of India was rejected. 4. Aggrieved against this award, Ratna Ram has filed the present appeal which has been registered as S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 11/83 and Union of India has also filed present appeal against rejection of their claim and the same has been registered as S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 27/87. 5. Mr. Bhansali appearing for Ratna Ram strenuously urged that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is contributory negligence of jeep driver as well as truck driver, is not correct. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present situation, looking to the" injuries and the damage done to the vehicle, it is more than apparent that it is the jeep driver who is responsible for this accident and not the truck driver. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, version given out by non claimant Ratna Ram is more probable. In this connection learned counsel has invited my attention to the statements of OPW-1 Ratna Ram, OPW-6 Khoga Ram, OPW-7 Jagjit Singh and OPW-2 Swai Singh and OPW-4 Mobta Ram. Learned counsel has also taken me to the statements of Major J.S. Gujral (PW-1) and the statement of the Shabnam (PW-2) and driver Chandgani Ram (PW-3). On the basis of the statement of Ratna Ram Khoga Ram, Jagit Singh and Swai Singh, it appears that the jeep was rather more on wrong side than the truck. 6. When the accident of such type takes place it is very difficult to say who should be blamed more or who should be blamed less. It was a month of January and accident took place in the evening near about 6-7 p.m. when sun was about to set and there was a fading light. In the present case when both the vehicles were coming from opposite direction and there view was obstructed by the Camel Cart which was heavily over loaded. Thus, both the sides could not sue, because of the obstructions. It is just possible that the jeep might have hit the vehicle or it would be otherwise also. But the fact remains that both the vehicles have been damaged from the front side. Both the head-lights of the jeep were damaged and head-light of the right side to truck was also damaged. It is just possible that the jeep might have hit the vehicle or it would be otherwise also. But the fact remains that both the vehicles have been damaged from the front side. Both the head-lights of the jeep were damaged and head-light of the right side to truck was also damaged. Thus in this state of affairs, Tribunal has found both persons are responsible for this accident and held contributory liable. The finding appears to be correct and does not warrant any interference. 7. Now coming to the question of quantum of the damages awarded by the learned Judge, total amount oi Rs. 16,300/- has been awarded. Since both are responsible for this unfortunate accident, therefore, I further deem it proper to reduce the amount of the compensation as under : Claimant No. 1 Jagjit Singh will only get Rs. 2,300/- , claimant No. 2 Shabnam will only get Rs. 5,000/- and claimant No. 3 will get Rs. 1,000/- only. 8. The appeal of Ratna Ram No. 11/83 is partly allowed, as indicated above. 9. Now, coming to the appeal filed by Union of India whereby they have claimed the damages suffered by the jeep. The Lerrned Judge has found that the claimant has failed to prove the actual cost for repair of the jeep. The appellant Union of India only satisfied with filing of estimate, this cannot be substituted for actual damage for repair incurred by Union of India. Thus, the finding of the Learned Judge is correct and does not warrant any inference by this court. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Union of India 27/83 is dismissed and the appeal filed by Ratna Ram 11/83 is partly allowed, as indicated above.Parties are left to bear their own costs. *******