S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The claim for compensation here is by Ram Singh, Postal Assistant, who sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg and including fractures of his left leg, when he was run over by the Punjab Roadways bus PNH-9869. This accident occurred at a crossing in Hoshiarpur at about 9-30 A.M. on December 7, 1982. The crossing being of the Tanda-Hoshiarpur Road and the Subhash Nagar-Model Town. The bus came on to the crossing from the side of Tanda while the claimant-Ram Singh who was on a cycle entered it from the Subhash Nagar Road on its right.
2. According to the claimant, he accompanied by two other Postal Assistants, namely; Hazura Singh and Saran Dass Chopra was proceeding towards the City Post Office when he while going ahead tried to cross the road. The bus came from the side of Tanda, struck against him and ran him over. Rash and negligent driving was attributed by him to the bus-driver.
3. The version of the respondents, on the other hand, was that the accident occurred when the claimant suddenly tried to cross the road from the right side of the bus and on seeing him, the bus-driver tried to avoid the accident by blowing the horn and applying brakes, but as the distance between the cyclist and bus was very short, the accident took place due to the negligence of the cyclist.
4. The case of the claimant rests upon the testimony of PW 5 Hazura Singh and PW 6--Saran Das. They deposed when they reached near the crossing, they noticed the bus coming at a very fast speed from the side of Tanda. The claimant, Ram Singh who was about 10/15 yards ahead of them had crossed the road when the bus, according to PW 5 Hazura Singh went on to its wrong side and struck against his cycle. PW-6 Saran Das, on the other hand, deposed that Ram Singh was in the process of crossing the road when the bus struck against him, but then again said that he had just crossed the road when the accident occurred. The claimant, PW-4 Ram Singh stated that he had crossed the road when the bus came and knocked him down.
5. The only witness examined from the side of the respondents was the bus-driver RW 1 Malkiat Singh, who deposed that be had noticed the claimant trying to cross the road from his right hand-side. The bus was at that time traveling at a speed of 35 to 40 kilometres per hour. The claimant had, however, emerged suddenly at a fast speed; he then blew the horn and applied brakes, but the cycle came and struck against the right front side of the bus.
6. A reading of the evidence regarding the manner in which the accident occurred would show that neither the claimant nor the bus-driver complied with Regulations 6 and 7 of the Xth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act while entering the crossing inasmuch as, they did not slow down nor did they take the precaution of ensuring that the crossing was clear before entering it. Further, it is pertinent to note that both the claimant and the bus-driver deposed that they had seen each other approaching the crossing before then actually entered it. On the face of it thus both the bus-driver as also the claimant clearly render themselves liable to be branded as negligent on this account alone.
7. The primary duty of care that a road user owes is to himself to ensure that due safeguards are taken to avoid danger and to keep out of harm's away even if it involves giving right of way to a vehicle being driven contrary to the rules of the road. Here it will be seen that there are circum stances to indict both the claimant and the bus-driver for negligence. In so far as the bus-driver is concerned, an important circumstance against him is provided by the skid marks of the bus which according to PW 3 A.S.I. Balbir Singh stretched to a distance of 60 to 65 feet, which is clearly indicative of the fast speed at which the bus was travelling when the accident occurred. Further, evidence shows that it was the left front type of the bus, that had run over the cycle of the injured claimant, though no doubt the bus-driver had swerved the bus in an effort to avoid the accident.
8. The claimant, on his part, was clearly foolhardy in seeking to go across the crossing despite being aware of the bus coming towards him at a fast speed. What is more, he had entered the crossing on to the main road on which the bus was travelling. Being on the main road, the bus clearly had a right of precedence.
9. Taking an over-all view of the circumstances and the manner in which the accident occurred, both the bus-driver as also the claimant must be held to be equally to blame for the accident and negligence must thus attributed to them accordingly.
10. Turning now to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, the evidence on record shows that claimant-Ram Singh was about 38 years of age at the time of the accident. He was employed as a Postal Assistant in the Post Office at Hoshiarpur. As mentioned earlier, on' account of the injuries sustained by him, in this accident, his right leg had to be amputated from above the knee and he also had fractures in his left leg. He spent over a month as an indoor patient at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh. Now as a result of his present disability, he can no longer cycle and he can walk but only on crutches. Besides this, he now also has to incur expenses on his transportation including going and coming from his office. This thus being the state and the situation of the claimant, the compensation payable to him cannot, by any means, be less than that claimed, namely Rs. 1,20,000/-. Keeping in view, however, the contributory negligence of the claimant, the amount actually payable to him would be only half this amount.
11. The claimant is accordingly hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation, which he shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.
12. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
13. This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.