JUDGMENT

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. These two appeals are being disposed of vide this common judgment as these arise out of the common judgment dated 26.11.2001 of Judge, MACT, New Delhi in suits bearing No. 310/1992 and 334/1992. Both these suits were filed seeking compensation on account of the accident that took place on 12th May, 1992.

2. The appellant herein had filed suit no. 310/1992 against the respondent Sandeep Sharma, who had filed suit No. 334/1992 against the appellant and his wife. Both, the appellant and the respondent were driving their respective scooters, when accident took place between them on 12th May 1992. They both sustained injuries in the accident. They both filed suits for claiming compensation against each-other. The police had also registered a case against the appellant under Section 279/338 IPC wherein ultimately the appellant came to be acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Both the parties contested their respective suits. The learned Judge, MACT vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the suit of the appellant herein; whereas awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent Sandeep Sharma against the appellant. The appellant has challenged the findings of the Judge, MACT on both these counts by way of these two separate appeals.

3. These appeals have been filed on the grounds that the learned Judge, MACT has erred in not taking note of the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter being driven by respondent Sandeep Sharma and that the appellant was acquitted by the Magistrate in the police case registered against him under Section 279/338 IPC. It is submitted that his acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case would testify that the accident was not caused because of his rash or negligent driving, but that of the respondent Sandeep Sharma. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was driving his scooter at slow speed on the left side of the road when his scooter was struck from behind by the scooter of respondent Sandeep Sharma and the same stands proved from the mechanical inspection reports of the scooters, as per which damage caused to his scooter was on the right side and to that of respondent Sandeep Sharma on the front and the left side. It is also submitted that the appellant suffered disability to the extent of 50% and was entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent National Insurance Company and perused the records.

5. The plea that the appellant was driving his scooter at slow speed on the left side of the road and was struck from behind by the respondent Sandeep Sharma and as a result of which his scooter fell on the right side and that of the respondent on the left side and that the same would be testified from the mechanical inspection reports, has been elaborately dealt with by the learned Judge, MACT. From the evidence which was led by the parties, and which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Judge, MACT, it is noticed that the appellant had deposed that he was driving his scooter at slow speed on the left side of the road when the scooter being driven by respondent hit his scooter with big force. He has not deposed to the manner in which the accident took place. He did not utter a single word that the scooter being driven by the respondent Sandeep Sharma hit his scooter from behind. On the other hand respondent Sandeep Sharma had categorically stated about the appellant having overtaken his scooter from the left side and tried to take sudden turn on the right side. This part of his testimony remained unchallenged throughout. The learned Judge, MACT has rightly observed that if the scooter driven by the appellant on the left side was struck from behind by the respondent Sandeep Sharma, then the damage to the scooter of the appellant would have been on the rear portion and to the scooter of the respondent on the front side. As agai