In a road accident case, if both the claimant and the driver of the other vehicle are found to have contributed to the accident, the liability for compensation can be apportioned between them.

1. This judgment will dispose of F. A. O. Nos.248 and 260 of 1972 which arise out of the same judgment.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the claimant was a medical practitioner at Jagadhri. On April 10, 1969, he had gone to village Makaronpur to examine a patient. He returned from that village on his motor-cycle at about 8-45 a. m. The attendant of the patient, Nathu Ram, accompanied him to Jagadhri. He was sitting on the pillion seat of the motor-cycle. On the way, there was a tri-junction where three roads--one from Jagadhri, another from Jamna Nagar and the third from Chhachhrauli meet. The claimant was coming from Chhachhrauli side. A truck bearing No. HRA 966 was proceeding from Jamna Nagar to Chhachhrauli side. It belonged to Tara Chand and was being driven by Arjan Singh, driver. It is alleged by the claimant that it was being driven at a high speed. It is further stated that when the truck came at the road junction and took a turn to the right side, the driver saw the claimant coming on the road on motorcycle from Chhachhrauli side. It is then said that the driver after seeing him swerved the vehicle towards the left and saved the head on collision with the motor-cycle but while doing so the silencer and rear portion of the truck hit against the motor-cycle. Nathu Ram, who was sitting on the pillion seat, fell down on the ground on account of the impact. He later on died in the hospital. It is then averred that the hind right wheel of the truck passed over the motor-cycle and the right leg of the claimant on account of which his right thigh was crushed. Later, his leg was amputated in the hospital at Patiala. The claimant filed a claim for Rs.75,000 before the Tribunal against the owner, the driver and the insurer of the truck.

3. The claim was defended by the respondents. Tara Chand and Arjan Singh, in their joint written statement, admitted the accident but denied that it had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. On the other hand, they pleaded that the claimant himself was driving the motor-cycle rashly and negligently on account of which the accident took place.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : " 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving by the driver of the vehicle 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom 3. Relief?"

5. It held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs.55,000 as damages. Consequently, it allowed the claim to that extent.

6. Two appeals have been filed against the award of the Tribunal--one by the New India Assurance Company, the insurer (FAO No.260 of 1972), and the other by the owner and the driver (FAO No.248 of 1972 ).

7. The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck or the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that from the pleadings and evidence of the claimant it is clearly established that the accident took place on account of the fault of the claimant and, therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any damages. In the alternative, he has urged that Brij Mohan Gupta, respondent, had at least contributed to the accident and, therefore, the appellants are liable for a part of the damages. He also argues that the accident also did not take place at the point suggested by the claimant.

8. There is a controversy regarding the place of occurrence. In the claim petition, the claimant had stated that at the tri-junction, he gave an indication that he had to take a turn for Jagadhri. The driver of the truck was coming from the opposite side and did not give any indication as to which side he was to take a turn. He was coming at a high speed and the silencer of the truck struck against the moto