JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Corporation, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur dated 27-8-96. making an award of Rs. 84,250/-, as compensation to the death of one, Nanu Ram. 2. The facts of the case are that, the claimants, being the widowed mother, widow, and two minor children of the deceased, Nanu Ram, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, alleging that on 9-1-94, in the noon, the deceased along with the claimant No. 2, were returning from Aaspur, after having Darshan of Vijawamata, on way, in between villages Pindawal and Patiyan, the delinquent bus, No. RJ 14/PO-1040, came from the opposite direction, which was being run negligently, and at fast speed, dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, both the occupants of the motorcycle received serious injuries, and during the course of treatment, Nanu Ram expired. The deceased was said to be 45 years of age, and earning Rs. 100 per day. It was alleged that he was also having a Pass Port, and was going to Kuwait ones in span of every three years, and was earning an amount of around Rs. 1,00,000/- during the span of every five years. On these basis, the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed for the loss of income, then Rs. 3,00,000/- were claimed for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- for expenditure incurred in medical treatment, and going to and fro Ahmedabad, Rs. 28,000/- were claimed for the cost of motorcycle. 3. The defendant contested the claim by alleging that, the accident was the result of negligence of the deceased himself. On the report being lodged in the Police, the Police also found the deceased to be negligent. It was alleged that, it was the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle negligently, and at a fast speed, therefore, he dashed against the bus without any fault of the driver of the bus. The amount claimed was also alleged to be exaggerated. 4. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1, relating to the negligence, in the manner that, the accident was found to be an out come of contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Then, while deciding issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1, relating to the negligence, in the manner that, the accident was found to be an out come of contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Then, while deciding issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 2000/-, and after deducting personal expenditure to the extent of ⅓rd, held the claimants to be entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 2000/- to each of the other claimants for loss of love and affection, and Rs. 2500/- for expenditure incurred in the performance of the last rites. Thus, the claimants were found entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,68,500/-, and taking into consideration the fact of the deceased, being equally contributory in the accident, held that the claimants are entitled to get half of this amount. Thus, the decree for the aforesaid amount has been passed. 5. Assailing the impugned award, submissions were made only with respect to the findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1, relating to the negligence. It was contended that from the material on record, and from the circumstances, it is clear that, the accident was the result of sole negligence of the deceased, and, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal, holding the driver of the bus guilty of even contributory negligence is bad. It is contended that after thorough investigation, the Police also concluded that the accident was the result of negligence of the deceased himself, in such circumstances, the appeal is required to be allowed, and the claim petition is required to be dismissed in toto. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned award, and contended that though, the Police did find the deceased to be negligent, in driving the motorcycle, but then, that is only opinion of the Investigating Officer, which is not a substantive piece of evidence in these proceedings. According to the learned counsel, from the perusal of the Site Inspection Note, Ex. 3, and the statements of the claimant No. 2, the widow of the deceased, who is an injured eye-witness, a pillion rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident, does clearly establish that the accident was the result of sole negligence of the bus driver. According to the learned counsel, from the perusal of the Site Inspection Note, Ex. 3, and the statements of the claimant No. 2, the widow of the deceased, who is an injured eye-witness, a pillion rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident, does clearly establish that the accident was the result of sole negligence of the bus driver. On these basis, it was contended that the appeal is required to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions, and have closely gone through the record. 8. At the outset, it may be observed that no cross-objections have been filed on the side of the claimants, so as to entitle them to contend that the accident was the out come of the sole negligence of the bus driver, or that, the amount of compensation assessed, is inadequate. In that view of the matter, I am only required to see as to whether the finding, as recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No. 1, requires to be sustained, or needs any interference. 9. In this case, on the side of the claimants, only two witnesses have been examined, one being the mother of the deceased, and the other being the widow of the deceased, who also happened to be an eye-witness as PW/2. PW/2 has clearly deposed that she and the deceased were returning after having Darshan of Vijawamata and going towards Maitwala at which time, between villages Pindawal and Patiyan, the Roadways' bus came from the opposite direction, and hit the motorcycle. She has also deposed that the Roadways' driver was driving the bus at a very fast speed, on account of which, the accident occurred, and in that accident, both the occupants received injuries. In cross examination, she has deposed to have lodged the separate claim for her injuries, wherein she received Rs. 10,000/- was compensation. She has maintained that the accident occurred in Kaccha portion of the road, the speed of the motorcycle was slow, and that the bus was coming from the opposite direction. She has expressed inability to depose the precise speed of the bus, and the motorcycle, in terms of kilometers. She has denied the suggestion about the accident being the out come of negligence of her husband. She has also denied the suggestion about the motorcycle, having straightway dashed against the bus on the Dammar road. She has expressed inability to depose the precise speed of the bus, and the motorcycle, in terms of kilometers. She has denied the suggestion about the accident being the out come of negligence of her husband. She has also denied the suggestion about the motorcycle, having straightway dashed against the bus on the Dammar road. This is the whole testimony of PW/2, on the question of negligence, and as to how, the accident occurred. As against this, no evidence whatever has been led on the side of the defendants, so much so, that even the driver of the bus has not chosen to step in the witness-box to depose as to how the accident occurred, and to establish that the accident was not the result of his negligence, and was the result of sole negligence of the deceased. 10. I may also only mention here that I find on record a certified copy of the award dated 6-1- 96, passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 184/95 (Smt. Premlata v. Depo Manager) . A perusal of that judgment shows that, that claim was related to this very accident, and was filed for the compensation, for the injuries sustained by the claimant, Smt. Premlata. In that case, the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence of the parties, and material on record, passed an award of Rs. 20,000/-, in favour of Smt. Premlata. No appeal appears to have been filed against that award by the present appellants. It is a different story that in the aforesaid claim petition No. 184/95, the accident has been found to be the result of sole negligence of the bus driver, while in the present case, the accident has been found to be the result of contributory negligence of both the vehicles. That judgment has not been formally tendered in evidence in the present case. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal giving the judgments happened to be different. Be that as it may, I do not mean to either be obsessed by the findings, recorded in claim No. 184, much less to take it as a res judicata. I have made the mention about that judgment only, by the way, as a certified copy thereof happened to be there on record. 11. Then I may also advert to Ex. P/3. which is the Site Inspection Note. I have made the mention about that judgment only, by the way, as a certified copy thereof happened to be there on record. 11. Then I may also advert to Ex. P/3. which is the Site Inspection Note. Of course, in this note, it is mentioned that photographs of the site were taken, and that in the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the motorcyclist came at a fast speed, and by coming towards the right side, caused the accident, but then from the contents of the Site Inspection Note, it is not possible to deduce, or even comprehend, the precise circumstances of the spot. The Site Plan has not been produced on record, and even the photographs of the spot, which are said to have been taken, have also not been produced, which all could very well be produced by the defence, the appellant. In such circumstances, since there is no rebuttal to the testimony of Smt. Premlata, deposing the accident to be the result of negligence of the bus driver, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No. 1, holding that the accident was the result of contributory negligence of both the driver to the equal extent, is required to be interfered with in the appeal of the appellant. 12. No other point was raised. 13. The appeal has thus no force and is hereby dismissed. 14. The parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******