JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 16.6.1994, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar, in Claim Case No. 30 of 1992.
2. The claimant was Range Inspector in the Police Department. He was posted at Police Station, Malthoun (Sagar). On 21.4.1986, he boarded truck No. 3527 at 7-8 p.m. for going to Sagar for Physical Examination. Nearby culvert, the truck driver saw bus No. 1888 coming from the opposite direction. Both the vehicles gave light signal with a view to cross the culvert. However, none of them stopped to allow the other to cross the same. This resulted in the accident. The matter was reported to the police station and case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and culprits prosecuted.
3. The claimant initiated claim petition for Rs. 1,20,000 before the Claims Tribunal alleging rash and negligent driving by the drivers of two vehicles. The claim has been dismissed on the ground that he was travelling by goods vehicle and that permanent disability suffered by him has not been established. The claimant is not satisfied with this award, hence this appeal.
4. Counsel for parties heard and record perused.
5. The evidence discloses that both the vehicles were liable for committing the accident. Although, in the claim petition, the claimant has stated that the driver of truck by which he was travelling, gave lights to the driver of the bus coming from the opposite side allowing him to cross the culvert, but during his statement in the court, he specifically stated that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident, since both switched on the light, but none stopped to allow either of them to cross the culvert first in point of time. Therefore, it is established from the evidence that accident took place and both the drivers of the vehicles were responsible for committing the same by their rash and negligent driving.
6. The next question is the settlement of compensation. The claimant has stated that he suffered fracture of acetabulum hip right. Although, there are number of documents on the file to support this claim, but they have not been exhibited nor dpctor, who treated the claimant, examined as witness in the case. Consequently, the extent of disability has not been established. The fact is that the claimant suffered fracture of acetabulum hip right in the accident. He remained under treatment for about two months. Obviously, looking to the nature of injuries, he must have undergone great pain and suffering apart from incurring expenditure on medical treatment. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 25,000 is awarded for injuries suffered by the claimant and Rs. 2,000 for medical treatment. Both these amounts shall be payable with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.
7. Last question is about the liability for making the payment of compensation awarded. Mrs. A. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the insurance company, submits that the claimant was travelling by goods vehicle, therefore, gratuitous passenger is not allowed to travel in goods vehicle. Consequently, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the truck was insured, is not liable to pay compensation under the old Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 ACJ 1 (SC). The contention is accepted, since there is substance in it. As the decision of the Supreme Court is under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, similar is position in the present case, accident having taken place on 21.4.1986 and the new Act came from 1.7.1989. In the light of evidence, we hold that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for committing the accident, therefore in case of bus No. CPQ 1888 owned by Prabhushankar respondent No. 3, the liability to pay 50 per cent of compensation shall be of the owner and driver and payable by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sagar. The liability for payment of remaining half of the compensation shall be of owner and driver jointly and severally of the truck No. MPB 3527, namely, Harisewak Mishra (owner) and Rishi Kumar (driver).
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the aforesaid. The parties shall bear their own costs.