JUDGMENT
N.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 8.12.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi in Claim Case No. 19 of 1988 whereby the appellant was held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,377/- and respondent/Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on5.1.1988 the claimant/ respondent No. 1 was going on his Jeep bearing No. CIE-643. The Jeep of the appellant which was coming from the opposite side, was being driven by the respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Jeep of the claimant/respondent No. 1, as a result of which the claimant suffered fractures on his legs. The Jeep of the appellant was insured with the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.
3. The defence of the appellant/owner of the vehicle was that the respondent No. 1 was hinging on the foot-board of the Jeep by the side of the driver and his body was completely exposed. While the Jeep of the appellant, coming from opposite side, was passing by the side of the Jeep of the claimant, the claimant fell down from his Jeep, as a result he sustained fracture injuries on his legs. The claimant was himself responsible for the accident. The accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of the driver of the jeep of the claimant/respondent No. 1, who was driving the Jeep rashly and negligently.
4. The claimant/respondent No. 1 filed the claim case claiming compensation of Rs. 8,85,465.83 p. The learned Claims Tribunal on consideration of the evidence, held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the extent of their liability as per insurance policy and the appellant to pay Rs. 17,377/- and interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
5. Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Jeep No. CIE-514 in driving the Jeep. The accident took place on account of the carelessness and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No. CIE-643 or at best it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers in driving the respective Jeeps. The driver of jeep No. CIE-514 alone cannot be held liable and responsible for the accident. The evidence of the claimant/respondent No. 1 is very vacillating and does not lead to any definite conclusion in what manner the accident took place. The evidence of the claimant/ respondent No. 1 that he was sitting to the left side of the driver cannot be accepted because in a case of collusion of the Jeep by their sides, no injury would be caused on the leg of the passenger sitting on left side next to the driver. The evidence of the claimant/respondent clearly indicates that he was travelling on the foot-board of the Jeep by the side of the driver and he fell down when the Jeep of the appellant was passing by the side of the Jeep of the claimant/respondent. Therefore, the appellant could not be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent. The contention of Mr. Mishra is well founded.
6. Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, has contended that the manner in which the accident took place is not very clear. On perusal of the evidence available on record and the averments made by the claimant/ respondent in his claim petition, it is obvious that the accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of both the Jeep drivers and 4he claimant/respondent himself was travelling on the foot-board on the wrong side. The respondent/Insurance Company is no doubt liable to pay compensation to the extent of their liability as per insurance policy, but no liability to pay compensation would pass on to the appellant (owner of Jeep No. CIE-514).
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the award under appeal is modified to the extent indicated above and in the result the appeal is partly allowed but without cost.