Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—Appellants - original claimants are before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 1st February 1999 passed by the M.A.C.T.(a), Godhra, Panchmahals District, in M.A.C.P. No.1164/1992. The Tribunal has passed an order, which reads as under: "Application is partly allowed. All the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.99060/- only (In words rupees Ninety nine thousand sixty only), to the applicants, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application till its realisation. All the opponents are further directed to pay the proportionate cost of this application to the applicants and shall bear their own. As the opponents have deposited Rs.38000/- under 'No Fault Liability', and if Rs. 25000/- are already paid to the applicants under 'No Fault Liability', then it is to be deducted from the aforesaid awarded amount, and if not then total amount so awarded is to be deposited with interest and cost as directed above. If the amount under 'No fault liability' is paid, then it is to be deposited as amount of Rs.25000/- under no fault liability and Rs.3150/- towards cost of this application and rest of the amount as interest, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to get amount of Rs.99060/-, Rs.25000/-, Rs.74060/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application till its realisation, with proportionate cost of this application is to be paid by opponent No.1 to 3 (in the ratio of 20% of their liability), to the applicants and shall bear their own. Amount of Rs.3150/- so calculated towards cost of this application, if paid under no fault liability, is to be deducted from the cost of this application, and remaining cost is to be deposited by the opponent No.3 calcula-ting it on awarded amount, alongwith interest and principal amount of Rs.74060/- in the court, till its realisation. Deficit court fees on amount of Rs.10,000,00/- if any, is to be recovered from the applicants, first be deducted and then, disbursed to the applicants, according to law. Award be drawn accordingly." Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the main grievance of the appellants herein is about the apportionment of negligence by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has held the deceased motorcyclist negligent to the extent of 80% and the truck driver to the extent of 20%. Award be drawn accordingly." Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the main grievance of the appellants herein is about the apportionment of negligence by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has held the deceased motorcyclist negligent to the extent of 80% and the truck driver to the extent of 20%. In this regard, learned advocate invited attention of the Court to paragraphs 9 and 10 which reads as under: "Learned Advocate. for the opponent, Mr. D.P. Mehta has vehemently argued before me that applicants have admitted the complaint, and relied upon by them. Complaint shows that deceased was trying to overtake S.T. bus and in doing so, he met with an accident. He has categorically stated that truck was coming from opposite side and other time stated that it was coming from behind. So, applicants are not able to prove negligence on the part of the opponent No.1. From the complaint and panchnama, it is clear that applicant's deceased husband was trying to overtake bus and accident took place and deceased is negligent. He has further stated that as the applicant has examined eye witness namely Fatehsinhbhai, who has categorically stated that on 23.6.92, when he was near FCI godown, at that time, deceased was coming from Godhra side and he tried to overtake and completed the said process of overtaking the S.T. bus but accident took place. So, fact of the complaint given by the driver of the truck gets support from the independent witness, who was present at the place of accident, who is examined by the applicants. He falsifies the story of the applicants. Therefore, the accident took place due to sheer negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, opponents are not liable to pay compensation to the applicants. He has further argued that only on this point, application of the applicants deserves to be dismissed with cost. Further, the learned advocate Mr. Mehta has argued that there is no documentary evidence produced by the applicant to show that deceased was earning said amount as contended in the application. Further, whatever is stated in the application cannot be considered as gospel truth. Further, the learned advocate Mr. Mehta has argued that there is no documentary evidence produced by the applicant to show that deceased was earning said amount as contended in the application. Further, whatever is stated in the application cannot be considered as gospel truth. Under the circumstances, if the court comes to conclusion that they are entitled to get compensation, then considering Rs.1500/- p.m. as his income x 12 x 15 multipliers (looking to his age at the time of death), whatever amount would come can be considered as compensation. Further, he argued that opponent No.1 who is driver and owner of the truck if he has upon seeing the motor cycle coming overtaking the bus, has tried to avoid the accident but not applied the brakes and accident took place, then in that case, at the most, they be given five to ten thousand rupees as compensation, and in alternative, if the negligence on the part of the deceased, application be dismissed with cost. I do not agree with the arguments of learned advocate Mr. P.J. Thakkar in toto. He has very wisely drafted the application avoiding to state the direction of truck from which it came and met with accident. It is stated in the application that when deceased came near FCI godown, at that time, the opponent No.1 came there driving his truck No. GRY 3322 and dashed truck with the deceased, on rear wheel of the motorcycle, so deliberately, the learned advocate for the applicants has not shown the direction from which side truck came. Not only that he tried to explain the complaint, which was filed by the opponent No.1. Now, if we see the complaint and application, name of eye witness is shown, who has categorically stated on oath that while overtaking the bus, deceased completing said process of overtaking bus, met with accident. That he was going to correct side after taking overturn the bus, rear wheel of the motorcycle was dashed with bus, so the truck driver who was coming from the opposite side, was on his correct side, but it is the deceased who was overtaking the bus met with accident. That the fact of the accident was not admitted by the opponent No.1. On the contrary, how the accident had taken place is stated in the complaint. That the fact of the accident was not admitted by the opponent No.1. On the contrary, how the accident had taken place is stated in the complaint. That the complaint is relied upon by the applicant and the applicants have examined their eye-witness, and Mr. Fatehsinh, eye witness has supported the theory of the opponent No.1 as stated in the complaint, and not supported the theory of the applicants. In view of this, it is clear that accident took place due to sheer negligence on the part of the deceased as well as on the part of the opponent No.1. That the opponent No.1 was coming from the opposite direction and he has seen the motorcycle coming from opposite side overtaking the bus, at that time, it was the duty of the driver of truck to avoid the accident, but he has not done so, as it is clear from the complaint that while going to correct side of deceased by overtaking bus, at that time, his motorcycle's rear wheel dashed with the truck. As the deceased was more negligent in driving his motorcycle, as he was overtaking the bus and came in touch with rear wheel of it and further as truck driver also negligent in driving his truck as accident had taken place, as he could have avoided the accident by applying brakes and slowing the truck speed, as he has not done so, hence, liability can be fastened to the ratio of 20%:80% as of truck driver and deceased respectively. Under the circumstances, I decide issue No.1 in the affirmative." Learned advocate for the appellant vehemently argued and tried to convince this Court that the Tribunal has erred in apportioning negligence between the two; (1) the motorcyclist on one hand; and (2) the truck driver on the other. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the Insurance Company invited attention of the Court to the fact that the appellants - claimants did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands and they tried to built a story so as to win the sympathy in favour of the claimants. The learned advocate usually submitted that a truck driver is alleged to be negligent and in this case when a life is lost it is easy to do so. The learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimants tried to put-forth two stories, which are diagonally opposite to each other. The learned advocate usually submitted that a truck driver is alleged to be negligent and in this case when a life is lost it is easy to do so. The learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimants tried to put-forth two stories, which are diagonally opposite to each other. He submitted that it is clear that they wanted to win the sympathy of the Tribunal so as to get the maximum amount of compensation. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal has taken a specific note of this. He submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal after assessing the acceptability came to the con-clusion that, the story that, 'the truck coming from behind' is ruled out. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in apportioning the negligence in the ratio of 80:20 i.e. 80% to the motorcyclist and 20% to the truck driver. Despite all sympathies to the claimants, this Court is not able to convince itself that the First Appeal has any merit and, therefore, refuses to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the result, the First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.