Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Anvarali Abdulmiya Saiyed is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Panchmahals, Godhra dated 29.1.1986 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 937 of 1983 to the extent the Tribunal held the appellant- original claimant negligent to the extent of 50%. 2. There is an endorsement made by the learned Advocate on the memo of First Appeal itself, which reads as under: “Claim is restricted to the 50% of the contributory negligence and as Rs. 48,000/- is determined as compensation, 50% i.e. 24,000/- is not paid on the ground of contributory negligence and hence that part of the decree is challenged. So deducting Rs. 24,000/- from total amount of Rs. 48,000/-, 24,000/- is claimed and necessary court fee paid on that count only.” Signature is illegible, but it could be made out that it is by the learned Advocate who filed the appeal in the year 1986. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the judgment and award and submitted that the defence taken by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in Exh.10 is not only improbable but impossible to be believed. He submitted that he is yet to come across an S.T. bus driver who would stop his bus seeing a motorcycle coming from opposite direction driven in a rough manner. He submitted that only on that ground, the Tribunal ought to have held that the case put forward by the opponent- GSRTC is not acceptable and a finding ought not to have been recorded attributing 50% negligence to the claimant, appellant herein. 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in drawing inference that the claimant did not have a pakka licence. He submitted that this inference is drawn on a statement made by the claimant that he had a learning licence but the same is not produced. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submitted that without framing an appropriate issue with regard to ‘negligence’, the Tribunal could not have recorded a finding to the aforesaid effect (holding the claimant negligent to the extent of 50%). 6. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submitted that without framing an appropriate issue with regard to ‘negligence’, the Tribunal could not have recorded a finding to the aforesaid effect (holding the claimant negligent to the extent of 50%). 6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the GSRTC vehemently supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the First Appeal deserves to be dismissed as the Tribunal has not erred in either recording the finding on the aspect of ‘negligence’ nor it has committed any error in appreciating the evidence led before it, in the matter of quantifying compensation. 7. The Tribunal after taking note of the accident in Para 1 and after taking note of the written statement filed by the GSRTC in Para 2, framed the issues and recorded in Para 3, which reads as under:— “(1) Whether it is proved that the claimant sustained injuries on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in driving the vehicle involved in the accident?” This issue is answered ‘in affirmative’. Second issue framed by the Tribunal is, “What amount, if any, the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?” To this, the Tribunal has stated ‘As per order below’. 8. The question of negligence is considered by the Tribunal in Para 5 of the judgment, which reads as under:— “5. In order to prove his claim, the claimant has stepped into the box and his evidence has been recorded at exh.14. He says that he is working as a motor mechanic and at the relevant time he was taking a motor cycle and while going towards Santrampur side on left side of the road of the Santrampur town slowly, at that time, he was looking for the defects of the motor cycle. When he come near the pond, a S.T. Bus came from opposite direction and dashed with him. At this stage, I would also sate the defence of the opponents. As per the say of opponents, opponent No. 2 was driving very slowly and that the motor cyclist came from opposite direction. It has also been stated that the motor cycle did not dash at the driver’s side of the bus but it had dashed with the conductor’s side of the bus. As per the say of opponents, opponent No. 2 was driving very slowly and that the motor cyclist came from opposite direction. It has also been stated that the motor cycle did not dash at the driver’s side of the bus but it had dashed with the conductor’s side of the bus. In order to prove the say of the driver, opponent No. 2, the S.T. driver has also stepped into the box. His evidence is at exh.43. He says that while he was approaching Santrampur there is a curve, on seeing the motor cycle from the opposite direction coming in a very rough manner, he stopped his vehicle on his left hand side. The motor cycle came at an excessive speed and dash with the bus and fell down. He got down and went to the police station where he lodged the information. He also states that he has been seeing the claimant working. He further states that had the motor cyclist was at a slow speed or the speed was lowered down, there would have been no collision. The allegation on the part of the motor cyclist that the incident had happened due to rash and negligent driving by opponent No. 2 is denied. Both of them have been cross-examined by the rival advocates. The claimant had a learning licence as per his though he has not produced the same. that means, he was not having a pucca licence as per his own say. over and above this, his motor cycle was also defective and he was going to test it. Not only that but he was at that time finding out if there was any defect. The vehicles were opposite to each other and with little care of the motor cyclist, he could have avoided the accident. Simultaneously the driver of the but could have noticed that the motor cyclist was coming from the opposite side. The S.T. Driver had also immediately lodged the complaint. The vehicles were opposite to each other and with little care of the motor cyclist, he could have avoided the accident. Simultaneously the driver of the but could have noticed that the motor cyclist was coming from the opposite side. The S.T. Driver had also immediately lodged the complaint. Considering all this evidence and reading the copy of the panchnama which is produced at exh.20 which shows that the road was 16 feet broad and that the motor cycle was just near the bus, it can also be stated that the bus may be an excessive speed, and also further hold that both the drivers i.e. the driver of the S.T. bus as well as the driver of the motor cycle i.e. the claimant be be equally negligent. I, therefore, assign 50% negligence to each of them.” The learned Advocate for the opponent GSRTC pointed out that in a typed copy of the judgment and award, the word ‘NOT’ is missing, when it is recorded that, ‘it can also be stated that bus may be at an excessive speed.....’. The learned Advocate stated this on the basis of the certified copy available with the learned Advocate. On verifying this aspect from the original judgment and award from the record and proceedings received from the Court below, it is noticed that the word ‘NOT’ is missing in the typed copy. 9. Taking into consideration the contents of the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.20, and taking into consideration the fact that the motorcycle, which was coming from opposite direction, dashed with S.T. bus on a conductor side itself is suggestive of the fact that the motorcyclist was 100% responsible for the accident. But, in absence of any appeal having been filed by the S.T. Corporation, this Court is not to vary the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the most relevant aspects of the matter, viz. i. Motorcyclist was a mechanic; ii. Motorcyclist was trying to find out the exact nature of defect in the motorcycle; iii. Motorcyclist has not even produced the learning licence which, according to him, he was holding at the time of accident; iv. i. Motorcyclist was a mechanic; ii. Motorcyclist was trying to find out the exact nature of defect in the motorcycle; iii. Motorcyclist has not even produced the learning licence which, according to him, he was holding at the time of accident; iv. The inference drawn by the Tribunal to the effect that the motorcyclist has stated that he was holding learning licence, leaves no scope of imagining that the motorcyclist was having a pakka licence; v. Motorcyclist dashed with the bus though coming from opposite direction on the conductor side; vi. Motorcycle is found positioned near the bus. If the bus was in excessive speed, as suggested and contended by the motorcyclist, the motorcycle would not have been near the bus. All these factors go to show that it was a motorcycle which while coming from opposite direction, dashed with the bus not with front portion of the bus but dashed on the conductor side. 11. In view of the above, the First Appeal is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed.