Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 95 (RAJ)

Amar Singh v. Sunil Kumar Garg

2011-01-12

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 17/8/2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur whereby, a sum of Rs.22,000/- was awarded as compensation. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that appellant No.1 Amar Singh was driving the motorcycle on the correct side and it was non-claimant No.1, who had hit him coming from the backside. Learned counsel argued that respondent – Sunil Kumar Garg/owner was driving the motorcycle. He suddenly came from the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle being driven by appellant No.1 and resultantly, both the appellants sustained injuries. Mere fact that appellant No.1 did not prove his license, cannot be held him responsible for contributory negligence of 60%. Learned counsel citing from the site plan, argued that motorcycle of appellant No.1 was found on the left side of the road, where appellant was found to be driving the motorcycle. Learned Tribunal has erred in law holding appellant No.1 responsible to the extent of 60% and respondent No.1- Sunil Kumar Garg to the extent of 40% particularly when charge-sheet was filed against Sunil Kumar Garg. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that appellant No.1 did not have license and thus was rightly held liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 60%. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that even if appellant No.1 is taken to have liable for the contributory negligence of 60% but the evidence also revealed that new motorcycle was being driven by Sunil Kumar Garg. Even his license was also not proved in evidence. New motorcycle was met with an accident even before its insurance could be obtained. Motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 hit appellants from other side of the road, whereas appellant No.1 was on his correct side. Respondent No.1 was roughly driving the motorcycle. Merely because appellant No.1 was not having the license, it was not justified for the Tribunal to hold him liable for the contributory negligence to the extent of 60%. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal holding 60% contributory negligence on the part of appellant No.1 and 40% on the part of respondent No.1 is reversed. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal holding 60% contributory negligence on the part of appellant No.1 and 40% on the part of respondent No.1 is reversed. Appellant No.1 has been held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 40% and respondent No.1 to the extent of 60%. However, compensation awarded to appellant No.2 to the tune of Rs.2,000/- is maintained. Appellant is No.1 held entailed to receive compensation of Rs.12,000/- (20000-8000) upon computation of 40%, from respondent No.1-Sunil Kumar Garg. He shall be liable to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,000/- @7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition. Record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.