The learned counsel appearing for the appellants on merits submitted that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the claimant who was riding the scooter and was proceeding just behind the car in the same direction. The learned counsel, in the alternative submitted that the claimant who was riding the scooter just behind the car was in any case guilty of contributory negligence, which should have been duly apportioned in awarding the compensation. We have gone through the relevant portion of the testimony of the driver of the car and that of the claimant. In our opinion, even accepting entirely the version of the accident as narrated by the claimant, as a rider of the scooter who was proceeding just behind the car in the same direction some degree of care should have been exercised by him. He could have avoided the collision had he maintained a reasonable distance from the car going ahead of him. It was, therefore, a case of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who was riding the scooter. Looking to the version of the parties and the manner in which the accident took place, we are of the opinion that the negligence has to be apportioned 50% - 50% on the driver of the car and the claimant as the rider of the scooter. The learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as general damages. In view of our finding that the claimant was also responsible for the contributory negligence, the amount of compensation has to be proportionately reduced by 50%. The claimant was, therefore, not entitled to more than Rs. 5,000/- under the head general damages.

The learned counsel for the appellants then assailed the grant of special damages under various heads and criticised the award under those heads as arbitrary and baseless. A sum of Rs. 100/- has been allowed towards conveyance charges for getting the medicines. Prima facie in the absence of any evidence that a sum of Rs. 100/- was required as transport charges for purchase of medicines, the same claim could not have been awarded.

A sum of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded towards special diet We find no justification for this award as in any case even without the accident the same diet expenses would have been incurred by the claimant even by leading a normal life. There was nothing to show that any extra expenses has been incurred awards diet during the period the claimant was hospitalised. Similarly, there was absolutely no justification to grant a sum of Rs.900/- for the services rendered by the wife of the claimant. The Tribunal has in its award in paragraph 27 stated that there was no proof of engagement of any servant for the house hold work because the wife was busy in the hospital. Having held so, there could be no award of compensation for the services rendered by the wife which she was rendering as a member of the family. The award of Rs.900/- therefore, under that lead has to be set aside. So for as the amount awarded under other heads is concerned, no interference is called for. Appeal partly allowed.