The main legal point established is the determination of liability in a motor accident case based on the preponderance of probabilities and the admissibility of F.I.R. as a public document.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. The Claimants have filed the present appeal against the judgment-of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 18.8.1992 by which a total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest was awarded to the claimants.

2. The case in brief is that on 19.7.1991 at about 4.30 P.M. Surinder Singh Sasson, Advocate, practicing at Ambala City, was going from Ambala Cantt. to Ambala City on his scooter No. HNA-6775 along with another person who was sitting on the pillion. When he reached the "T point linking Mall road with G.T. Road, a military truck No. 89AF-313205 being driven by Ajay Kumar, Air Man at a high speed suddenly turned towards the right side without blowing any horn or giving any signal as a result of which the scooter dashed against the truck. Both Surinder Singh Sasson and the person sitting on the pillion were injured. They were taken to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. and therefrom to the P.G.I. Chandigarh where Surinder Singh Sasson succumbed to his injuries. A F.I.R. No. 267 dated 19.7.1991 was lodged by Kesar Lal, Home Guard, who was on duty at the T point where the accident took place.

3. Smt. Nirmala Kumar, widow of the deceased, along with her three children, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of Surinder Singh Sasson. In the claim petition, a total compensation of Rs. 10 lacs was claimed. It was averred that the deceased was 41 years of the age at the time of his death and was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as an Advocate.

4. A written statement was filed by the Union of India wherein it has been stated that the driver of the Air Force Vehicle had given the signal by hand and light indicator was also given while turning to the right hand side. It has also been stated that Surinder Singh Sasson was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and he was coming at a very high speed and wanted to overtake the Air Force Vehicle as a result of which the accident took place. It has further been stated that the Air Force Authorities have already exonerated the Air Man in the court of inquiry.

5. The claimants examined Kamal Kumar PW2 as a witness who deposed that on the day of accident when he was going from Ambala Cantt. to Ambala City on his Moped, an Air Force truck which was going ahead of him and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner suddenly took turn towards the right hand side and Surinder Singh Sasson, who was driving the Scooter along with a person on his pillion seat, got entangled in the Air Force Vehicle. Surinder Singh Sasson was removed to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. and therefrom to the P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries. It is also stated that a report Ex.PI was lodged by him.

6. In rebuttal, Ajay Kumar, driver of the Air Force Vehicle, appeared as RW1 as his own witness and made a statement that he had given the signal while turning to the right hand .side and the Traffic Constable on duty had given the pass-on signal to him. He has also stated that while he was in the process of turning his vehicle towards the right hand side, the scooterist came from the rear and struck against the right hand side front wheel of the truck. It has further been stated that court of inquiry was held against him and he was exonerated by the Air Force Authorities.

7. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal held that the accident took place because of the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles.

8. The question that arises in the present appeal is-

Whether the accident took place because of the contributory negligence of the driver of the scooter as well as the driver of the Air Force truck?

9. It has been argued by Mr. S.K. Jain, counsel for the claimants, that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. He has referred to the statement of Kamal Kumar PW2 who