JUDGMENT 1. - This is a misc. appeal filed by owner of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short called "the Act") against an award, dated 18.12.1998, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar In Claim Case No. 83/97. 2. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimant (respondent No. 1) (since deceased) and in consequence awarded to him a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident. However, while so awarding, the Tribunal held driver of one of the offending vehicle (appellant) to be equally responsible for causing accident and accordingly apportioned the liability between the two wrongdoers i.e. two drivers/owners of the vehicles involved in the incident, which caused injuries to claimant. So far as this appeal is concerned, it is filed by one of the owner of offending vehicle contending that Tribunal erred in holding appellant to be liable for causing accident. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether finding in relation to contributory negligence holding both the drivers of vehicle involved in the accident to be liable is factually and legally sustainable and if not then who should be held liable for causing accident. 4. It may be mentioned that original claimant i.e. Joginder Singh died pending this litigation. However, his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent No. 1 to respondent No.3. 5. Facts of the case are these. 6. Appellant is the owner of motorcycle bearing No. RRK 6366 whereas respondent No. 3 is the owner of another motorcycle bearing No. RJ13-1 M-4445. 7. On 5.4.94 appellant was going on his motorcycle. Joginder Singh (claimant) was its pillion rider. Similarly respondent No. 3 was going on his scooter, whose pillion rider was respondent No. 2. Both dashed against each other with their motorcycles. Due to this dash, Joginder Singh fell down and suffered injuries. So far as other three occupants of two motorcycles were concerned, no one suffered any injuries. 8. Joginder then filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, out of which this appeal arises against owner/driver and Insurance Company of motorcycle owned by NA-3/4. It was alleged that accident in question occurred on account of negligent driving of both the vehicles. The non-applicants denied the claim. Parties adduced evidence. 8. Joginder then filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, out of which this appeal arises against owner/driver and Insurance Company of motorcycle owned by NA-3/4. It was alleged that accident in question occurred on account of negligent driving of both the vehicles. The non-applicants denied the claim. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. It was held that both were responsible for causing the accident and hence have to share the liability in equal proportion. The Tribunal then awarded a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- to claimant for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is against this award, owner/driver of motorcycle on which injured claimant was travelling as pillion rider along has filed this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the finding in relation to contributory negligence contended that Tribunal should have held NA-3/4 to be solely responsible for causing accident and not the appellant, who did not cause the accident. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to allow the appeal in part and modify the impugned award to the extent indicated infra. 11. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. Joginder i.e. claimant in his evidence has deposed that Manmohan Singh was coming from the opposite direction and he was driving the scooter by one hand. He also stated that he was also carrying one pipe on his shoulder. He then stated that scooter driver could not control his scooter and dashed to the motorcycle, which was being driven by appellant-Kewal Singh on which Joginder was. sitting as pillion rider. Though this fact was denied by Manmohan (NA-2) who too entered in witness-box but I disbelieve him on this issue. In my view, the claimant's version i.e. Joginder's version is more natural, consistent and duly corroborated with the narration of facts mentioned in FIR which was immediately lodged by the claimant. 12. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the evidence of Joginder (claimant). He has stated the truth as against Manmohan Singh, who spoke incorrectly. The very fact that the presence of pipe on the body of Manmohan while driving his motorcycle was also mentioned in FIR then it stands corroborated with the evidence of claimant. 12. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the evidence of Joginder (claimant). He has stated the truth as against Manmohan Singh, who spoke incorrectly. The very fact that the presence of pipe on the body of Manmohan while driving his motorcycle was also mentioned in FIR then it stands corroborated with the evidence of claimant. In fact why should Joginder speak lie. In these circumstances if Manmohan was found carrying with him one pipe while driving his scooter then there is nothing unusual in present days scenario. It is thus clear that due to such carrying of pipe by Manmohan, he was unable to properly control his scooter and dashed to motorcycle on which claimant was travelling as pillion rider causing accident and in consequence causing injuries on his body. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold claimants driver i.e. NA-1 Kewal Singh (appellant) to be responsible either partly or fully for causing accident. 13. In the light of foregoing discussion, I am unable to concur with the finding recorded by Tribunal on the issue of negligence. In my view, it was not correctly recorded, whereas on appreciation of evidence, which I have made supra supports the conclusion with what is mentioned in FIR immediately lodged by claimant in police station. It is accordingly held that accident in question was caused due to negligence of Manmohan, who was driving motorcycle No. RJ13-1M-4445. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeed and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent that it is set aside in so far as the appellant is concerned, whereas it is upheld against all other non- applicants,No cost.Appeal Allowed - Award Modified Accordingly. *******