BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch, Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 407/90 and 416/90, dated 27. 11. 1998. Both the First Appeals (First Appeals No. 915/99 and 917/99) are proposed to be considered and Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same accident and common award. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, accident took place during early hours on 23. 10. 1988 on National Highway No. 8 near village Nabipur on Vadodara-Bharuch road. Two vehicles involved are Maruti Car GBQ-1241 and ST bus No. GRU-9767. Claimant was travelling in Maruti car from Vadodara to Bharuch while ST bus was coming from Bharuch to Vadodara. It is stated that car was being driven on the left side of the road at a reasonable speed while bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at excessive speed unmindful of other traffic on the road. The ST bus came on the wrong side and dashed with the Maruti car driven by the claimant. Car was thrown away on the left side of the road, claimant received injuries on the left eye, forehead, face, left hand, palm, right hand, chest, and five fractures on the right leg. He was treated at Civil Hospital, Bharuch, then by Dr. Nanavati, consultant Dr. Gautambhai Patel, removed to Vadodara at Dr. Aminbhai hospital. Operation was performed on right hand and leg, plate was inserted, plaster applied, remained indoor patient for number of days. He suffered injuries to the eyes. He was shifted to Mumbai and admitted at Bombay hospital for number of days, Dr. Dholakia was consulted, eye operated by Dr. Natarajan. Frequent visits to Mumbai had to be made for treatment and medical check-up, physiotherapic exercise. He was attended by his wife, mother and relatives in the hospital leaving their vocations, incurred huge expenses on treatment. Claimant was 37 year old at the time of accident, he had passed Engineering degree course from Bombay University. He worked at Aurangabad with Dalal and Company, deputed to Iraq for construction worked from 1977 to 1980. He worked with Gammon India, Bombay, Sharjah, Dubai, Abudhabi with several construction companies and got Rs. 13,000/= per month and other perquisites. Claimant was 37 year old at the time of accident, he had passed Engineering degree course from Bombay University. He worked at Aurangabad with Dalal and Company, deputed to Iraq for construction worked from 1977 to 1980. He worked with Gammon India, Bombay, Sharjah, Dubai, Abudhabi with several construction companies and got Rs. 13,000/= per month and other perquisites. He started his own construction business from 1986 under the name and style of "khyal Construction". Due to the accident, he could not complete the work at Bharuch. He had number of contracts of various sizes. Approximately, he was earning profit of Rs. 1,25,000/= per annum. Because of the injuries, he could not carry on and complete the work, as such, paid penalty for non completion thereof. He claimed Rs. 25,000/= towards travelling and special diet etc. He is claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/= on various items. Other claim pertains to damage to the car owned by Pushpaben Patel, totally damaged in this accident, but Insurance Company did not pay total amount of damage. Opponent-Corporation resists the claim with regard to the income, age, manner of taking place of accident, injuries, treatment, expenditures, negligence of the driver. It is stated that bus was being driven at a normal speed on the left side of the road. Maruti car overtook the truck ahead of it, came on the wrong side and dashed against the ST bus which the driver stopped immediately. Accident took place due to the negligence of the claimant. Claim is stated to be exaggerated. On the pleadings of parties, issues were framed, evidence recorded. Thereafter, Claims Tribunal held that accident took place as alleged, meaning thereby, claimant suffered injuries because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of ST bus, therefore, held entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,55,000/= carrying interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of application till payment/ realization. Against second claim qua damage to the car, compensation of Rs. 50,000/= is awarded with same rate of interest from the date of application till payment/ realization. ( 3 ) AGAINST this judgment, these two appeals have been preferred by the appellant. Both the learned counsel appearing in these cases are heard, record perused. Against second claim qua damage to the car, compensation of Rs. 50,000/= is awarded with same rate of interest from the date of application till payment/ realization. ( 3 ) AGAINST this judgment, these two appeals have been preferred by the appellant. Both the learned counsel appearing in these cases are heard, record perused. Shri Jayesh Barot, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by claimant, therefore, claim is liable to be rejected. In the alternative, claimant also contributed to the accident, therefore, impleadment of the insurer and insured of car is necessary in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to Panchnama also in support of his submissions. These submissions are seriously opposed by Shri M. T. M. Hakim, learned counsel for the claimant. We are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Apart from Panchnama, there is sufficient evidence on record to demonstrate that the bus driver was at fault. He was driving the bus at speed, came on the wrong side and hit the car resulting in serious injuries to the claimant and also caused complete damage to the car, thrown into ditch on the left side of road. Consequently, finding of fact arrived by the Claims Tribunal cannot be upturned by the appellate Court unless it is perverse. Since we find that this finding is based on evidence, submissions advanced by the claimant are rejected. Next question for determination is whether the compensation worked out by the Claims Tribunal is just in the facts and circumstances of the case. Looking to the manner the compensation has been assessed in the context of serious injuries suffered by the claimant, long treatment, expenditure thereon, post operation visits to hospital, serious dent to the eye, hand and leg causing serious infirmity to the body affecting his potential for earning in future since he was handsomely placed in the business with good education and training, compensation assessed is absolutely just and proper calling for no interference by this Court. Similarly, compensation for damage to the car is also reasonable. Consequently, there is no force in these appeals and the same are dismissed. While issuing Rule in Civil Application No. 5894 of 1999 in First Appeal No. 915 of 1999, this Court passed the following order:"rule. Mr. Similarly, compensation for damage to the car is also reasonable. Consequently, there is no force in these appeals and the same are dismissed. While issuing Rule in Civil Application No. 5894 of 1999 in First Appeal No. 915 of 1999, this Court passed the following order:"rule. Mr. M. T. M. Hakim, learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. At the joint request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the application is heard today. Heard learned counsel for the parties with regard to interim relief. Having regard to the facts of the case, interim relief granted earlier is directed to continue till the final disposal of the appeal on condition that the applicant deposits 50 per cent amount due under the award with cost and interest in the Tribunal on or before September 30, 1999. On amount being deposited, the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the original applicant so far as rest of the amount is concerned, the applicant shall file an undertaking on oath in the High Court on or before August 31, 1999 stating that if the appeal is dismissed, the remaining amount shall be paid by the Corporation to the original applicant with 15 per cent interest thereon from the date of application. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. " ( 4 ) THIS order will apply in First Appeal No. 915 of 1999, meaning thereby, remaining amount of compensation to the extent of 50% shall be payable with interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of claim application till payment/ realization. The appellant will therefore deposit the compensation amount with interest within one month. Thereafter, it shall be paid to the claimant on proper verification. Cost of this Court shall be suffered by both the parties. .