JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. These appeals and cross-objections have been filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) respectively being aggrieved by the award dated 12.3.2004 passed by learned [udge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deedwana, District Nagaur in MAC Case No. 371/2001 (75/2001) - Thana Ram v. Ramesh Kumar & Ors . and MAC Case No. 379/2001 - Somi Ram @ Soma Ram v. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. 3. The facts apposite giving rise to this appeal are that in an accident which took place on 10.11.2000 at 10.00 A.M., near Tulsi Devsthan, both the injured claimants, namely, Thana Ram and Somi Ram (a- Soma Ram who were going on their Motorcycle being RRJ-5194 from 'Oda' to 'jawal' when they were hit by Matador (RJ-24-T-456) coming from the opposite side, 'Jawal' to 'Oda', near a curve road and suffered injuries.The injured-claimants, namely, Thana Ram, aged 25 years and Somi Ram, aged 30 years, both were agriculturist labourers. In the said accident, first injured - Thana Ram suffered fracture in right leg Tibia bone and other injuries and the second injured - Somi Ram suffered injuries on right hand and, so also, suffered injuries on fingers of right hand and also on right eye. The claim petitions were filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,25,000/- for the injured-Thana Ram and Rs. 5,25,000/- for the injured-Somi Ram @ Sonia Ram. 4. The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos. 1 and 3 jointly, found that there was contributory negligence by the motorcycle driver to the extent of 50% and the claim awarded was reduced on this account. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, while deciding the issue No. 6, for injured Somi Ram @ Soma Ram, the Tribunal awarded as sum of Rs. 1,000/- against the loss of property for repairs of motor cycle although for which bills of repair of Rs. 23,345/-were furnished before the Tribunal. However, no compensation was awarded for the simple injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant Somi Ram. The Tribunal further found that the delay in deciding the claim petition up-to 29.3.2003, was on account of claimants and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any interest on the awarded sum, however, interest @ 6% P.A. from 1.4.2003 onwards was allowed. 5. However, no compensation was awarded for the simple injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant Somi Ram. The Tribunal further found that the delay in deciding the claim petition up-to 29.3.2003, was on account of claimants and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any interest on the awarded sum, however, interest @ 6% P.A. from 1.4.2003 onwards was allowed. 5. As far as the claimant-appellant-Thana Ram is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 8,000/- for the injuries and Rs. 1,150/- for medical treatment incurred by the said injured. 6. Being aggrieved by this award, the claimants-appellants have filed appeals seeking enhancement and also challenging the finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% determined by the learned Tribunal qua the claimants. 7. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Bhootra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that award is justified and findings with regard to contributory negligence are also just and proper based on site plan (Exhibit-5), and interest has also been rightly allowed only from 1.4.2003. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties at length and upon perusal of the impugned award and record of the case, including the site plan (Exhibit-5), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned award deserves to be modified and appeals of the claimants deserves to be partly allowed in following terms. 9. As far as the contributor)' negligence is concerned, a perusal of the site plan (Exhibit-5) would indicate that the offending vehicle Matador (RJ-24-T-456) coming from Jawal to Oda, just after the curve of the road, hit the motorcycle (RRJ-5194), coming from opposite site at about middle of the road and thereafter was found parked at point 'A' to 'B' on the left hand side of the said road. There were marks of rubber tyres of the Matador also between the points 'A' and 'B'. On the 12' wide bitumen road on both the sides, 4' wide 'Kachha' road was also there.It also appears that the motorcycle was slightly away from the extreme left with the bitumen road, but it appears from the site plan (Ex.5) that the Matador taking a sharp turn on the curve of the road, left side of the road (Correct Side) and hit the motorcycle at almost middle of the road. Had the driver of the matador taken proper and due care and slowed-down the speed of the Matador, the said vehicle could have taken its turn on the left of the road and the accident could have been avoided. At the same time, the motorcycle driver was also not careful enough and could have avoided the accident by taking his vehicle on the 4' wide 'Kachha' road on its left but it was also found to be have been hit at the middle of the road, for which there is no plausible explanation by motorcycle driver. 10. Therefore, the extent of the contribution of the motorcycle driver, in the opinion of this Court was only up to the extent of 30% instead of 50% whereas the accident caused by the negligence and rash driving of the Matador driver, his contribution to the extent of 70%, appears to be more appropriate on the basis of said evidence (Exhibit-5) side plan. The challan was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle (Matador having registration No. RJ-24-T-456), which was tried for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the extent of contributory negligence of 50% is modified to the extent of 30% for motorcycle and 70% of the matador driver. 11. Now, coming to the issue No. 6 regarding amount of compensation, the finding of the learned Tribunal with respect to insured-Somi Ram, at page 10-11 of the impugned award, requires further modification. From Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-10, the Tribunal has found that kick, sock aborber, Break, leg-guard and bumper of motorcycle were found to be broken. Bills of the extent of Rs. 23,345/-were furnished, which were not found to be reliable by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that same were not bearing registration of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only under this head; whereas the limit as per Insurance Policy, is to the extent of Rs. 6,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, the said compensation of Rs. 1,000/- deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. 12. As far as simple injuries suffered by the injured-claimant Somi Ram are concerned, the Tribunal has strangely given the reason the claimant being of 'Rebari' caste, would not require any treatment for such simple injuries, and therefore, he is not entitled to the compensation. 1,000/- deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. 12. As far as simple injuries suffered by the injured-claimant Somi Ram are concerned, the Tribunal has strangely given the reason the claimant being of 'Rebari' caste, would not require any treatment for such simple injuries, and therefore, he is not entitled to the compensation. This reason given by the learned Tribunal is not acceptable. The claimant-Somi Ram, vide injury reort (Ex.4) one abrasion of 2 cm x 5 cm of skin deep and one abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm. He has also expressed that there was back-pain on account of said injuries. The claimant had also stated before the Tribunal that he took treatment for the said injuries for about one month and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- were spent by him for such treatment and so also admitted in the hospital. 13. In the opinion of this Court, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- deserves to be awarded to the said claimant-Somi Ram @ Soma Ram. Thus the net enhance of Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- = Rs. 4,000/- under both these heads deserves to be allowed to the said claimant-injured. The said enhanced amount would bear interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of award till the date actual payment is made in proportion of 70% contributory negligence of the matador is held liable to pay the same. The award impugned stands modified accordingly. 14. As far as the claimant-appellant Thana Ram is concerned for the injuries suffered by him viz. fracture in right leg (Tibia bone) and other injuries of 1 cm x 1 cm on face and 5 cm x 3 cm abrasion of skin deep, the claimant had stated that he took treatment in the Government Hospital at Sirohi, although medicine bills were lost, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,150/- for such medical treatment only and Rs. 8,000/- for bodily pain and mental agony. A lump sum enhancement of Rs. 5,000/- under this head would meet the ends of justice. The said enhancement also will bear interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of award dated 12.3.2004 till the date of payment and to the extent 70%, the insurer-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. would be liable to pay the same. The award shall stand modified accordingly. 15. 5,000/- under this head would meet the ends of justice. The said enhancement also will bear interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of award dated 12.3.2004 till the date of payment and to the extent 70%, the insurer-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. would be liable to pay the same. The award shall stand modified accordingly. 15. The cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company are liable to be rejected for the aforesaid reasons and same are accordingly rejected. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the claimants-appellants are partly allowed and the cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company are rejected. No order as to costs.Appeals Partly Allowed and Cross-Objection Dismissed. *******