In cases of head-on collisions, where there is no clear explanation for the cause of the accident, it is presumed to be a case of contributory negligence, with both drivers being equally liable.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. B.D. Bagri, a doctor, employed with the Government, met with an accident on December 5, 1993 at 4.15 p.m. on G. T. Road near Zirbari in the area of Police Station Sadar Thanesar. On account of the accident, his.-right leg had to be amputated from below the knee. He claimed compensation to the. tune of five lac rupees even at a time when his leg had not been amputated (his leg was amputated during the pendency of the petition). However, on the issue with regard to negligence i.e. as to whether the accident took place due to rash and. negligent driving of respondent No.1, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal returned a finding against the claimant appellant herein, and dismissed the claim-petition. This order was passed by the Tribunal on February 8, 1995.

2. Obviously in the present appeal preferred by the appellant, the basic question is as to whether the Tribunal was right in returning the finding on issue No. 1 against the appellant.

3. Mr. Virk, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that at the most it is a case of contributory negligence as in no uncertain terms the driver of the other vehicle i.e. Ambassador car No. HR-01-2359 admitted that it was a case of head on collision. The version as given by the respondents was that the car driven by the appellant had dashed into the Ambassador car which was coming from the opposite direction. There being absolutely no explanation coming forth from the respondents to the exact manner in which the accident has taken place, learned counsel further contends that this has to be a case of contributory negligence.

4. Mr. Gopal Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that in the FIR that came to be lodged after the occurence, the police had found the appellant guilty of causing the accident and in fact he was tried by the criminal Court as well. Not only that the FIR speaks volumes of the negligence of the appellant but the occupants of the Ambassador car had unequivocally deposed that it is the appellant who was responsible for causing the accident.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. While dealing with the matter of compensation arising out of an accident, the Tribunal has necessarily to decide on the strength of the evidence led in the case. No inference can be drawn from the contents of the FIR to foist liability of drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. This principle of law has in fact been accepted by the learned Tribunal and yet, by and large, the entire case has been decided on the basis of FIR that came to be lodged. It may be mentioned at this stage and which fact has not been disputed, that the appellant was acquitted by the Criminal Court. As mentioned above, it is not disputed that this is a case of head on collision and that the version of the respondents that Maruti car of the appellant had dashed against the Ambassador car of the respondents, cannot be accepted particularly when there is no further explanation coming forth as to the way and manner in which the accident had taken place, and for that reason alone the appellant cannot be held responsible for causing the said accident. There was no occasion for the appellant to dash his car into a heavier car. That there was some technical defect in the car was not even the case of respondents. The Court is, thus, convinced that it is a case of contributory negligence as in every head on collusion, unless fault of one driver is pin-pointed, drivers of both the vehicles have to be held responsible. The Court finds it to be a case where both the drivers should be held, equally responsible for causing the accident. That being the position, the appellant is entitled to at least half the damages that were to be determined. However, the Tribunal, after recording finding against the appellant on Issue No. 1, just dismissed the application and did not deal with the quantum of compensatio