Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—These four appeals are arising out of two MACPs being 86 of 1976 and 87 of 1976. These two MACPs arose out of an accident which took place on the fateful day of 10.05.1976, when a Taxi cab bearing registration No.GTH-2971 was hit right in the centre of the body on the right hand side by an ST Bus of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("GSRTC", for short) bearing registration No.GTH-4260. These two MACPs came to be decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot by judgment and award dated 29.10.1977. 1.1 MACP No.86 of 1976 was filed by Mrs. Laxmi S. Nair, Miss Mini S. Nair, Miss Mallika S. Nair and Master Ajay Nair against (1) GSRTC, (2) Ravjibhai Punjabhai - driver of ST Bus, (3) M/s. Vyas Travel Pvt. Ltd. - owner of the Taxi cap, (4) Shri Jagannath - driver of the Taxi and (5) M/s.General Insurance Co. - insurer of the Taxi, whereas MACP No.87 of 1976 was filed by Mrs. Bhagirathiben Ganapathy, Miss Lata Ganapathy, Master Shri Ram Ganapathy and Master Shri Dhar Ganapathy against the same set of opponents. 1.2 The Tribunal, holding the drivers of both the vehicles liable in equal proportion, answered the issue which related to rashness and/or negligence of the driver of Taxi and the ST Bus. 2. Before this Court, First Appeal No.479 of 1978 is filed by GSRTC against Mrs. Bhagirathi Ganapathy and others, First Appeal No.480 of 1978 is again filed by GSRTC against Mrs.Laxmi S.Nair and others, First Appeal No.604 of 1978 is filed by M/s. Vyas Travel Pvt. Ltd. - owner of the Taxi and Mr. Jagannath - driver of the Taxi against Mrs. Laxmi S. Nair and others and First Appeal No.605 of 1978 is again filed by M/s. Vyas Travel Pvt. Ltd. - owner of the Taxi and Mr. Jagannath - driver of the Taxi against Mrs. Bhagirathi Ganapathy and others. 3. In First Appeal Nos.604 and 605 of 1978, the appellants have restricted their claim to the amount which is derived after dividing the awarded amount by 2 and deducting Rs.15,000/- (of limited liability) of the Insurance Company. 4. Jagannath - driver of the Taxi against Mrs. Bhagirathi Ganapathy and others. 3. In First Appeal Nos.604 and 605 of 1978, the appellants have restricted their claim to the amount which is derived after dividing the awarded amount by 2 and deducting Rs.15,000/- (of limited liability) of the Insurance Company. 4. The facts giving rise to MACP Nos.86 and 87 of 1976 as set out in the judgment and award are as under:- 4.1 The occupants of Taxi, employees of Engineers India Limited, a Government of India undertaking, came from Delhi to Ahmedabad and proceeded for Kandla after having hired a Taxi from Ahmedabad bearing registration No.GTH-2971 on 07.05.1976. They stayed at Kandla up to 10.05.1976 and on that day, they started for Ahmedabad by the same Taxi on Kandla-Ahmedabad highway. Shri S. Ganapathy, Shri E.G.S. Nair, Mr. Cauligem, Mr. Malhotra, Mr. M.L. Gupta and driver Jagannath were the occupants of the said Taxi. The Taxi came near the railway crossing, near Morbi and after crossing the same, moved towards Vankaner. On inter-section of state highway from Morbi to Halvad and of Kandla-Vankaner national highway, one Morbi-Anand ST Bus proceeding from Morbi to Halvad collided with the Taxi on the right hand side middle portion of the Taxi and the Taxi was thrown off the road in a road side pit. In the said accident, Shri E.G.S. Nair and Shri S.Ganapathy, who were severely injured, succumbed to the injuries. The other occupants of the Taxi also received injuries. The heirs of Shri E.G.S. Nair and Shri S. Ganapathy filed claim petitions as referred to hereinabove against the driver of the ST Bus, GSRTC, driver and owner of the Taxi and insurance company of the owner of the Taxi. 4.2 It is the case of both the drivers that they were not negligent at all and that they were driving their vehicles with moderate speed and it is only the other vehicle which was driven at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner, caused accident. The evidence was led before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence placed before it, recorded the finding of both the drivers being equally negligent and award was passed awarding Rs.2,43,000/- to Mrs. Laxmi S. Nair and others and Rs.2,70,000/- to Mrs. Bhagirathi Ganapathy and others. 5. The evidence was led before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence placed before it, recorded the finding of both the drivers being equally negligent and award was passed awarding Rs.2,43,000/- to Mrs. Laxmi S. Nair and others and Rs.2,70,000/- to Mrs. Bhagirathi Ganapathy and others. 5. So far as First Appeal Nos.479 and 480 of 1978 filed by GSRTC are concerned, learned Advocate for the appellant, while focusing her attack mainly on the negligence aspect, also submitted that the impugned award is on higher side and the multiplier applied is also on higher side. 6. So far as First Appeal Nos.604 and 605 of 1978 are concerned, learned Advocate for the appellants (owner and driver of the Taxi) submitted that he is restricting his attack only on the point of negligence and he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding both the drivers equally negligent for the accident in question. 7. To appreciate the question of negligence, it will be necessary to have a closer look at the scene of occurrence - the place where the accident took place. The Taxi was on the road which is from Kandla to Vankaner, Kandla being on north and Vankaner being on south, crossed by railway line at almost 90' degree whereas the ST Bus was on Morbi-Halvad road, coming from Morbi, being on west and going to Halvad, being on east. This road crosses national highway almost at 90' degree beyond 9 ft from railway crossing. The Taxi was coming from Kandla had first crossed the railway crossing. After crossing the railway line at a distance of 9 ft, inter-section of the two roads began. After the Taxi covered (travelled) 18 ft out of 22 ft wide inter-section of road (Morbi-Halvad), it was hit on its right hand side by the ST Bus in the centre of the body. The impact of the 'hit' was such that the Taxi went on the road to its left and rested in road side pit. Whereas the ST Bus, after having hit the Taxi, went ahead towards Halvad came to a halt in the road side pit, only after it was obstructed by a 'Babul' tree at a distance of about 60 ft from the point at which it hit the Taxi. Whereas the ST Bus, after having hit the Taxi, went ahead towards Halvad came to a halt in the road side pit, only after it was obstructed by a 'Babul' tree at a distance of about 60 ft from the point at which it hit the Taxi. 7.1 This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the Taxi had crossed the railway lime (railway crossing) before it entered the inter-section of these two roads. This Court can also, not be unmindful of the fact that the point of accident is shown to be 27 ft away from the railway crossing. The inter-section of the roads (Morbi-Halvad) starts at a distance of 9 ft from the railway crossing. The point of the inter-section at which the ST Bus 'hit' the Taxi, exactly in the centre of the Taxi, whereby front and rear both the doors are badly damaged and out of the persons occupying back seat, two of them sustained severe injuries to which ultimately they succumbed. The road (Morbi-Halvad) is shown to be 22 ft wide. This road is east-west On that road, in the southern sphere, at a distance of 18 ft from the northern edge, the accident took place. This shows that the Taxi had crossed almost the entire road, but for its misfortune, it would not have been subject to such a grave accident if the ST Bus was driven by the driver with little caution and care while reaching at inter-section of roads, about which there is a definite material on record that 'the vision' was not obstructed by any object. The ST Bus was driven by a driver who is stated to be 42 years of age on the date of his deposition. It has also come on record that he was plying ST Bus on this route for last 5 years. If that is so, he is expected, by very reasonable standard to know about such 'accident prone' locations. Despite this fact, he drove the Bus in such a manner that by going to the extreme right, he dashed with the Taxi in its centre, damaging right side, front and rear doors, causing such an impact that the Taxi was thrown off the road, in a pit, causing death of two of its passengers. Despite this fact, he drove the Bus in such a manner that by going to the extreme right, he dashed with the Taxi in its centre, damaging right side, front and rear doors, causing such an impact that the Taxi was thrown off the road, in a pit, causing death of two of its passengers. Not only that, he was not able to stop his Bus until it travelled 60 ft away from the point of occurrence of accident and could stop only when it was obstructed by a Babul tree. 7.2 Technicalities apart, even by a 'Thumb Rule', as is pronounced by the Hon'ble the Apex Court, 'bigger the vehicle, higher is the responsibility'. Not only that, what is important is the exact point on which the accident has taken place. It is on extreme right, which unfortunately happens to be extreme wrong side for the ST Bus. It is at this point that the Bus has hit the Taxi not on its front portion, but just in the centre, leaving two persons dead in the back seat. 8. Learned Advocate for GSRTC invited attention of the Court to the deposition of driver of ST Bus, examined at Exh.90, page No.63 of the paper book. He has deposed that he is aged 42 years. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that for last about 5 years, he has been driving Bus on this route. The entire evidence of the ST Bus driver, if read together, does not inspire any confidence because if what is stated by him is true, such an accident could not have taken place at all. He opens his deposition by saying that, 'when the Bus reached Kandla-Vankaner cross road, it was at the speed of approximately 25 km. per hour'. He further states that, 'the Bus was on the left side of the road; that when I entered the inter-section, I noticed a Taxi coming from the left hand side of the Bus, which was at about distance of 50 ft. and it was running at the speed of 75 to 80 km per hour'. 9. All this does not make a meaningful reading, more particularly when all these assertions are belied by the photographs which are placed on record. The turtle position of the Taxi speaks for itself. and it was running at the speed of 75 to 80 km per hour'. 9. All this does not make a meaningful reading, more particularly when all these assertions are belied by the photographs which are placed on record. The turtle position of the Taxi speaks for itself. It tells a story of being hit by a very speeding object (Bus), which rendered the Taxi nothing more than a scrape. If the Taxi was run at a speed of 75 to 80 km per hour and if the Taxi driver was at fault, it would have dashed the Bus and that dashing could have taken place only with the front portion of the Taxi. This Court is not able to visualize as to how any running object can dash to another object by its centre portion. The dashing could be only by the front portion. The driver of the ST Bus was in a 'safe position' being in command of a vehicle, which is heavy in weight, big in size and had more height in comparison to Taxi and that is why he did not suffer any injury as against the injuries sustained by the driver of the Taxi and the occupants of the Taxi, of whom two passengers died. This driver is cooking all possible stories to advance his case of innocence. 9.1 Let it not be misunderstood that this Court is having any undue sympathy in favour of the Taxi driver or its occupants because two of them have lost their lives or that the Court is having any bias against the ST Bus or its driver. All that is felt by the Court is that GSRTC is a public body. Its entire existence is for the public service and its employees, more particularly drivers and the conductors are required to be full of public service spirit, being humble and courteous and 'caring one' so as to give a message to the public at large that they are out to serve the people. This accident, if not suggestive of the arrogance of a public sector employee, it is definitely suggestive of the deadly negligence on the part of the ST Bus driver. This accident, if not suggestive of the arrogance of a public sector employee, it is definitely suggestive of the deadly negligence on the part of the ST Bus driver. 9.2 Often when the two vehicles play an equal role in colliding with each other, the term 'dash' is used, but present is not the case of vehicles having dashed with each other, but it is a case wherein ST Bus has HIT the Taxi in its center part of the body on the right hand side. Therefore, the entire deposition of the ST Bus Driver, wherein he has stated that, 'after he slowed down his Bus, it was the Taxi, which first dashed with my Bus', is a glaring example of stating incorrect facts on oath. The very fact that the Taxi is turned to a scrape shows the magnitude of the 'HIT' by the Bus. 9.3 There are few stray truthful sentences in the deposition of the ST Bus driver when he says that, 'the right hand front side of the Bus dashed with a Babul tree and therefore, there was a dent; that there is a sign board towards 'Malia' on which it is stated that there is a railway crossing ahead therefore drive slow. However, in the same breath, he states that, 'I was on state highway and there was no board of caution'. This statement is belied by his own say that he is driving Bus on this route for last 5 years. If that is true the he is expected to know every small point where there is a possibility of an accident. It is required to be noted that this witness (ST Bus driver) was cautiously trying to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal. He referred the road (Morbi-Halvad) as 'state highway', but does not refer Kandla-Vankaner as 'national highway'. This Court is not ready to believe that ST Bus driver is not aware of the status of the road leading from Kandla to Vankaner. In the alternative, if he is not aware of the status of Kandla-Vankaner road then it is still worst and deserves no pardon for such ignorance. This Court is not ready to believe that ST Bus driver is not aware of the status of the road leading from Kandla to Vankaner. In the alternative, if he is not aware of the status of Kandla-Vankaner road then it is still worst and deserves no pardon for such ignorance. The Court can understand that he may not be aware of technicalities attached to different roads like national highway is one which is declared as national highway under National Highways Act, 1956 and the state highway declared to be state highway under the relevant law, but then it will be absolutely right to attribute knowledge to an ST Bus driver that he very well knew that Kandla-Vankaner road was definitely of higher importance than the road leading to Halvad from Morbi. 9.4 The deponent (ST Bus driver) continued cooking story even in the cross-examination and stated that, 'I was driving my Bus at a speed of 25 km per hour and at that if the brakes would have been applied, the Bus would have stopped at a distance of 7 to 8 ft'. The falsehood contained in this statement is visible from the fact that the ST Bus, after hitting the Taxi in its centre portion, travelled 60 ft. and could stop only after being obstructed by a 'Babul' tree. This Court is left guessing about the force which dragged the Bus after it caused accident to a distance of 60 ft. If the Bus was run at a speed of 25 km per hour, the Taxi itself would have been sufficient to stop the Bus at the place of accident itself. The fact that the Taxi was thrown in a rode side pit and the Bus travelled for 60 long ft before it came into a grinding halt after hitting a Babul tree, speaks for the speed at which the ST Bus was driven. This Court is conscious that if not the ST Bus driver who else will depose for the 'innocence' and 'safe driving' with which ST Bus driven. 9.5 In the exercise of determining the extent of negligence, it is equally important to note that it is on record that, 'the vision was not obstructed by any obstruction at the inter-section' and despite that, the Bus driver could noticed the Taxi only after it entered the inter-section. 9.5 In the exercise of determining the extent of negligence, it is equally important to note that it is on record that, 'the vision was not obstructed by any obstruction at the inter-section' and despite that, the Bus driver could noticed the Taxi only after it entered the inter-section. It is deposed by the ST driver that, 'until my Bus entered the inter-section, I did not see the Taxi coming'. The ST Bus driver has tried to convince the Tribunal that he was driving the Bus in most safe manner. He has stated that, 'while entering the inter-section, he show right and left so as to decide if any vehicle is coming from either side, he may stop his Bus'. He further states that, 'he applied brake and slowed his Bus, but during that time, the Taxi dashed with his Bus'. 9.6 This Court is not able to accept the description that, the Taxi dashed with the Bus', because 'dashing' conveys a definite meaning. As discussed hereinabove, it is only when running object hits the another object and for that reason a motor vehicle when its front portion hits another object or vehicle, it can be said that the vehicle dashed with that object or vehicle. Even at the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that it was the ST Bus, which HIT the Taxi and not that the ST Bus and taxi dashed with each other. It is unfortunate that the Court do not have any control over the illogical, irrational and irrelevant depositions. The Courts are only supposed to take note of all these illogical, irrational and irrelevant depositions and then to appreciate the same and record its findings. This is observed because the ST Bus driver deposed that the Taxi dashed with the ST Bus by its side portion as if the Taxi had more than two movements - forward and backward. The statement that the Taxi dashed with the Bus by side is possible only if the Taxi is also having a possibility of movement side ways. 9.7 In the cross-examination, the ST Bus driver deposed that, 'after getting down from his Bus, which could be stopped only on account of obstruction caused by the 'Babul' tree, he noticed that there was damage to the front glass of the taxi and on the right hand side of the Taxi'. 9.7 In the cross-examination, the ST Bus driver deposed that, 'after getting down from his Bus, which could be stopped only on account of obstruction caused by the 'Babul' tree, he noticed that there was damage to the front glass of the taxi and on the right hand side of the Taxi'. The way the total crushing of the Taxi is tried to be simplified by the ST Bus driver, is worth appreciating. He reiterates that, 'he had applied brake and by waving his hand outside the bus, he had given a signal that he wants to go straight and he had also blown horn'. He states that he is aware that when there are cross roads, he is supposed to give this sign. He then states that, 'it was only after giving this sign that he noticed the Taxi'. 9.8 Last but not the least, the time of accident is also very significant. It is 8:15 in the morning. It is a time when 'public' is expected to be on road. This is relevant and also significant because had it been 1:15 am to 5:15 am, the complexion of the matter would have been different. But not necessarily that would change the apportionment of negligence between a Taxi driver and ST Bus driver. 10. Learned Advocate for GSRTC next invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of Taxi driver Exh.93, page No.67 of the paper-book. 10.1 As is expected from any other driver, this driver has also tried to exaggerate his innocence. But, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that he was on a National Highway and he had crossed 18 ft of the road (Morbi-Halvad) while coming from Kandla and going towards Vankaner. That means, he had almost crossed the inter-section, but he could not avoid the accident, which, in the opinion of this Court, was possible only by the ST Bus driver, who came all the way from Morbi side and while going towards Halvad went absolutely on the wrong side and hit the Taxi. This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that this Taxi driver received injuries in the head and soon after coming out of the taxi, he became unconscious and regain consciousness only after 15 to 20 days as stated by him. This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that this Taxi driver received injuries in the head and soon after coming out of the taxi, he became unconscious and regain consciousness only after 15 to 20 days as stated by him. This Court is also duty bound to note that the Taxi was coming after crossing the railway line and therefore, unless it was a racing car and participating in a race, wherein the car is supposed to cover a distance in a shortest possible time, it is bound to have a controlled speed, may be unwillingly. This Court can also not ignore a fact that the Taxi had crossed out of 22 ft, 18 ft road and it was on extreme left, which happens to be the right side for the Taxi and it is the Taxi which is hit by the ST Bus, on the right hand side of the Taxi in the centre. If from the appreciation of these two evidences, the Court has to decide about the negligence, the Court will definitely decide that it was the ST Bus driver, who was not only negligent, but was rash and rash to the extent that it caused loss of two lives. 11. The learned Advocate for the GSRTC invited attention of the Court to the deposition of PSI of Morbi City Police Station, who had investigated the accident and had drawn the Panchnama and had recorded the statements of the persons who were concerned with this accident. The deposition of PSI is at Exh. 88, page 59 of the Paper-book. The PSI has deposed that he had investigated the accident, had visited the site of accident, had drawn the Panchnama and had recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has deposed that, 'witness - Mahendradas Laxmandas Gupta had stated in his statement before the Police that at the relevant time, our car was going at a speed of 60 to 70 km per hour'. In cross examination this PSI has stated that, 'at the end of my investigation, I had felt that it was the Bus driver, who was at fault and that I had filed charge-sheet in the Court; that no case is filed against the Taxi driver'. In the cross-examination, an explanation is sought on the aspect of speed of the car. In cross examination this PSI has stated that, 'at the end of my investigation, I had felt that it was the Bus driver, who was at fault and that I had filed charge-sheet in the Court; that no case is filed against the Taxi driver'. In the cross-examination, an explanation is sought on the aspect of speed of the car. The suggestion put to the PSI that, 'the witness had stated that the case was at a speed of sixty or seventy kms. The suggestion is denied by the PSI. Except this, there is nothing material, for the purpose of assigning negligence of the two drivers, in the deposition of the PSI. 12. Learned Advocate for GSRTC next invited attention of the Court to the deposition of one Hemubha Dansinh, examined at Exh.89, page No.61 of the paper book. He was one of the passengers in the ST Bus. This passenger is examined by GSRTC. This witness has stated that the railway lines were little higher than the road surface. This has bearing on the aspect of 'speeding Taxi'. Prima facie, the possibility of a Taxi speeding at an excessive speed is not acceptable because by any standard, a railway line crossing cannot be so surfaced that it does not obstruct the speeding vehicle and therefore, the taxi could not have avoided slowing down at the railway crossing. Besides, the inter-section is only 9 ft away from railway line and therefore, within those 9 ft, the Taxi cannot regain a speed which becomes excessive and excessive to the extent that it is not possible to avoid an accident and that too of such a magnitude. Besides, this deponent states that, 'they (the deponent and his co-passengers) wanted to caution the ST Bus driver that there is a Taxi coming from the left hand side but before that, the front portion of the ST Bus had collided with the centre portion of the right hand side of the Taxi'. 12.1 There is a material difference between the language used by the ST Bus driver and this deponent and the reason behind using different language is simple, as this deponent has not to establish his innocence, whereas the ST Bus driver is consciously trying to project himself to be an innocent one. 12.1 There is a material difference between the language used by the ST Bus driver and this deponent and the reason behind using different language is simple, as this deponent has not to establish his innocence, whereas the ST Bus driver is consciously trying to project himself to be an innocent one. This witness has stated that it was the front portion of the ST Bus and the center portion of the right hand side of the Taxi had collided. 12.2 Even otherwise, when a front portion of a vehicle is involved in an accident, it is the driver of that vehicle responsible for that accident unless contrary is proved. Besides, this witness has also stated that even after collision, the Bus was not within the control of the driver. This is possible only when the Bus was at an excessive speed. 13. The learned advocate for GSRTC also invited attention of the Court to the deposition of Mahendradas Laxmandas Gupta, examined at Exh.57, page No.39 of the paper book. He was one of the passengers in the Taxi. He was sitting on the extreme left of the front seat of the Taxi. He has deposed that, 'the right hand side of the Taxi was dashed by the front portion of the Bus'. He has also deposed that, 'the road was clear on all sides at the place of accident'. He has stated in the cross examination that, 'it is not a fact that I am interested in seeing that the legal representative of the deceased may got more compensation and as the liability of the Insurance Company as the insurer of taxi is limited, I have changed the story'. He has also stated in cross examination that, 'Railway crossing is right angle to the highway; that the road from Morbi to Halvad crosses the Kandla-Vankaner highway at the distance of about 20 fts. from the gate of railway crossing; that on all four sides at the cross roads the vision is clear; that there are no obstructions; that the railway lines' level is the same as that of the road, railway lines are slightly at a higher level of about 3 inches than the level of the road. from the gate of railway crossing; that on all four sides at the cross roads the vision is clear; that there are no obstructions; that the railway lines' level is the same as that of the road, railway lines are slightly at a higher level of about 3 inches than the level of the road. 13.1 All these things go to suggest that it was the ST Bus driver who was in a position to avoid accident and he could have done that, if he was not driving the Bus at an excessive speed, which could not be stopped even after seeing that the Taxi has already entered the inter-section and had already crossed the major part of the inter-section. 13.2 Last but not the least, this witness has also stated in cross examination that, 'I may have stated that the taxi was proceeding at the speed of 16 to 17 k.m. per hour but I have definitely not stated the speed of the Taxi to be 60 to 70 k.m. per hour'. 14. The learned advocate for the GSRTC invited attention of the Court to the deposition of Shri Amarshi Devraj - a Panch Witness, examined at 82, page No.55 of the paper book. This witness has narrated the facts and supported the Panchnama. He has stated that at the place of accident there were pieces of broken glass and the taxi was lying at the distance of 35 to 40 ft. Both the doors of right hand side were broken. It had reached there being 'dhasadti-dhasadti' (dragged) meaning thereby, it was not rolling on wheels and it was pushed to that place. Similarly, he has also stated that, 'the Bus was also in a road side pit and its right hand side light (glass) was broken'. He has also stated that, 'the railway lines are at the level of the road'. In his cross examination, he has stated that, 'there is a damage on both the doors of right hand side of the taxi; that there is no damage either on the front side, engine or on the backside, dickey'. He has also stated that, 'while coming from Morbi near the highway, there is a sign traffic board, on one of the boards it is mentioned that "Drive Slow, highway ahead". He has also stated that, 'while coming from Morbi near the highway, there is a sign traffic board, on one of the boards it is mentioned that "Drive Slow, highway ahead". He has also stated that, 'there is a board mentioning 'Main Road ahead cross after taking note of the traffic'. 15. From the aforesaid evidence of all these witnesses, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn that it was ST Bus driver who was negligent. 16. Taking into consideration all aforesaid material, this Court is of the opinion that it was the S.T. Bus driver who was 100% negligent in causing the accident because: The ST Bus was on a side road. The Taxi was on a National Highway. There was a railway crossing on the National Highway, which was crossed by the Taxi. The Taxi had entered the inter-section of the roads first. The Taxi had crossed the major portion of the inter-section. The taxi was hit by the S.T. Bus on its right hand side CENTER PORTION. The place of accident is the correct side for the Taxi. The point of accident is the wrong side for the ST Bus. The impact on Taxi was so heavy that it was thrown in a road side pit at a distance of about 35 to 40 ft. The Bus stopped at a distance of 60 ft from the point of accident and that too after having obstructed by a Babul tree. The ST Bus is a bigger vehicle. The driver of the ST Bus had a wider vision being at a height in comparison to Taxi. The ST Bus passenger has deposed that the ST Bus was driven at an excessive speed. It has come on record that there was a sign board cautioning the drivers on the 'state' road that, 'drive slow, highway ahead'. The accident occurred at 08.15 am, which is a usual time for the public to be on the road. The ST Bus driver was plying on this road for the last 5 years. The ST Bus driver has deposed that he did not notice Taxi coming from left side until he entered the inter-section. The ST Bus driver has failed to comply with driving regulation No.7, prescribed in 10th Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938, which reads as under:- "7. The ST Bus driver has deposed that he did not notice Taxi coming from left side until he entered the inter-section. The ST Bus driver has failed to comply with driving regulation No.7, prescribed in 10th Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938, which reads as under:- "7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall, on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand." There cannot be any 'dispute' and if there is any, the same is to be rejected outright, that 'Kandla-Vankaner' is a national highway notified in the year 1972. The ST Bus driver cannot be heard saying that he did not know that 'Kandla-Vankaner' is a national highway. Only by describing Morbi-Halvad road to be a state highway, the status of national highway does not get altered. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it was the ST Bus driver who was 100% negligent and was solely responsible for the accident. 17.1 Taking into consideration overall scenario, this Court is also of the opinion that if at all it was within anybody's control to avoid the accident, it was the ST Bus driver and not the Taxi driver. 18. Learned Advocate for GSRTC also tried to assail the 'quantum' of compensation awarded. But in absence of any acceptable arguments being advanced, which can be accepted by this Court so as to vary the amount of quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the same is maintained. Taking into consideration the age, income and other aspects of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Hon'ble Tribunal is just, proper and also reasonable, including that the 'multiplier' 19. In the result, First Appeal Nos.479 and 480 of 1978 are dismissed. First Appeal Nos.604 and 605 are allowed. It is declared that the appellants of First Appeal Nos.604 and 605 of 1978 are held 'not liable' for paying any amount of compensation to the claimants of MACP Nos.86 and 87 of 1976. Registry is directed to send R & P to the Hon'ble Tribunal forthwith.