1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 18.7.2007 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal held the appellant entitled to claim Rs. 1,61,500/- from the non claimants-respondents, but decreed only an amount of Rs. 80,800/- in his favour and against the respondents.

2. Background facts in a nut-shell are thus :

"On 28th December, 2003, appellant-claimant Amit Kumar and Jitendra Kumar Jangid @ Guddu were going by a motor cycle No. RJ 14-33 M2035 from Jaipur to Ajmer. Jitendra Kumar Jangid was riding the motor cycle and the appellant Amit Kumar was a pillion rider. The motor cycle was being driven with controlled speed and in right direction. It is averred that at about 12.30 PM when the motor cycle rider reached near Samman Hotel, one bus bearing registration No. RJ 141P2092 owned by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation being driven by its driver rashly and negligently turned to wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle resulting in the injuries to both rider and the pillion rider of the motor cycle. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, which held the contributory negligence of the motor cycle rider and since the appellant did not implead the owner of the motor cycle and its Insurance Company in the array of respondents, the learned Tribunal held the appellant entitled to claim only 50% of the amount under the award. The appellant felt aggrieved with this judgment, hence this appeal."

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award including the relevant material available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the finding of the learned Tribunal to this effect that the rider of the motor cycle and its Insurance Company were not impleaded a party in the array of the respondents, they were entitled only to claim 50% of the amount under the award, was based on wrong premise. He further contended that it was an option exclusively left to the appellant to exercise as to from whom he wanted to claim the amount of compensation. The appellant opted to claim the amount of compensation from the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hence he did not think fit to implead the rider of the motor cycle a party. The finding of the learned Tribunal not being based on legal premise, deserves to be set-aside and the amount under the award needs to be modified.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard was not correct and the appellant was entitled to claim 100% amount of compensation from the respondents.

6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material as also the relevant provisions of M.V. Act, 1988, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal was not required to adjudicate as to who was negligent at the time of accident or whose liability in the accident was more and whose less and further as to whether there was any contributory negligence or composite negligence, but the learned Tribunal was required to concentrate only on one aspect and adjudicate as to whether the use of motor vehicle, in respect of accident involving the injury to person or persons, was proved or not. Sub-section (1) of Section 165 of M.V. Act, 1988 envisages thus :

"(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such areas as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

Explanation. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the