Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Both these appeals are filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘GSRTC’, for short) being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 21.06.1982 passed by the Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh District, Junagadh in MACP Nos. 88 of 1981 and 89 of 1981. The Tribunal was pleased to pass the following award:— “(1) (i). The claimants of MACP No. 88/81: are awarded Rs. 70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. Rest of their claims dismissed with no order as to costs. (ii).... Both the opponents are held to be jointly and severally liable for the amount awarded which they are directed to deposit in the Tribunal within three months from the date hereof. On the amount being so deposited after deducting therefrom the requisite amount of court fees, if any remaining the balance shall be dealt with amongst respective claimants as answer. (iii) Rs. 3600/- and the entire amount of proportionate interest on Rs. 58,800/- shall be paid in cash to the applicant No. 1. (iv) Entire amount of costs and Rs. 11,400/- with proportionate interest shall be paid in cash to the applicants Nos. 4 and 5. (v) Rs. 10,000/- each shall be invested in the name of applicants Nos. 2 and 3 showing the name of applicants Nos. 1 and 4 as their guardians. The investment shall be for a period of 15 years and 20 years respectively. (vi) Sum of Rs. 35,000/- shall be invested in the name of the applicant No. 1 for a period of 20 years. (vii) During the subsistence of the respective investments the amount of interest earned thereon periodically shall be payable to them and the aforesaid guardians shall see that the interest earned on the deposit of the minors is spent for their upkeep and maintenance. (viii) During the subsistence of the investment without the express permission of the Court the Bank or the financial institution of a similar nature shall not permit the withdrawal of the principal sum of raising of loan thereon. In case it is not possible for the Bank or the institution to invest the amount for the stipulate period at a stretch, it shall do so for the maximum permissible period in the first instance and then shall re-invest till the stipulate period is over. In case it is not possible for the Bank or the institution to invest the amount for the stipulate period at a stretch, it shall do so for the maximum permissible period in the first instance and then shall re-invest till the stipulate period is over. At the end of that period the principal sum along with interest, if there be any, shall be paid to the deposit holder. (ix) Both the opponents shall bear their own costs. 2. (i) The claimants of MACP No. 89/81 are awarded Rs. 66,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. Rest of their claim is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ii).. Both the opponents are held to be jointly and severally liable for the amount awarded which they are directed to deposit in the Tribunal within 3 months from the rate thereof. On the amount being so deposited, after deducting therefrom the requisite amount of court fees, if any, the balance shall be dealt with as under:— (iii) Applicant No. 1 shall be paid Rs. 6000/- in cash with proportionate costs and interest. (iv) Applicant No. 2 shall be paid Rs. 3,000/- in cash. (v) Applicants Nos. 3 and 4 are apportioned Rs. 13,800/- each. This amount is directed to be deposited in a nationalized bank or a financial institution of similar nature in their names showing the names of the applicants Nos.1 and 2 as their guardian. The investment shall be for a period of five years and eight years respectively. (vi) The balance amount of Rs. 29,400/- is ordered to be invested in the name of the applicant No. 1 in the same manner for a period of seven years. (vii) During the subsistence of the respective investments the amount of interest earned thereon periodically shall be payable to them and the aforesaid deposits of the minors is spent for their upkeep and maintenance. (viii) During the subsistence of the investment without the express permission of the court the Bank or the financial institution of a similar nature shall not permit the withdrawal of the principal sum of raising of loan thereon. (viii) During the subsistence of the investment without the express permission of the court the Bank or the financial institution of a similar nature shall not permit the withdrawal of the principal sum of raising of loan thereon. In case it is not possible for the Bank or the institution to invest the amount for the stipulate period at a stretch, it shall do so for the maximum permissible period in the first instance and then shall re-invest till the stipulate period is over. At the end of that period the principal sum along with interest, if there be any, shall be paid to the deposit holder. (ix) Both the opponents shall bear their own costs.” 2. The aforesaid two claim petitions arose out of one accident which occurred on 28.12.1980 on Tulshishyam-Una road at about 03.00 pm when the driver of motorcycle (Gopaldas Prabhudas, who was a Range Forest Officer) bearing registration No. GJR-8978 and its pillion rider (Patel Pragjibai Nathabhai) died in the said accident. The motorcycle was coming towards Una from Tulshishyam. After they passed the sign board of ‘Mitha Nes’, an S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GRS 7740 coming from opposite direction, i.e. coming from Una and going towards Tulshishyam, knocked down the motorcycle, whereby both the riders were thrown on the ground violently. The Range Forest Officer died on the spot while the pillion rider died on the next day at Una hospital during treatment. 3. Claim Petition No. 88 of 1981 was filed by the widow of the pillion rider - Patel Pragjibhai Nathabhai along with two minor children and the parents of the deceased. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was carrying on agricultural work in the family land and was also serving in a shop and thus was earning a handsome amount every month. 3.1 Claim Petition No. 89 of 1981 was filed by the widow of the driver of the motorcycle ‘Gopaldas Prabhudas’ Range Forest Officer along with three minor children. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation, contending that the deceased was earning a monthly salary because of his service, but at the same time, he was looking after his own agricultural land. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation, contending that the deceased was earning a monthly salary because of his service, but at the same time, he was looking after his own agricultural land. 3.2 With the consent of the parties, both the aforesaid matters were consolidated and Claim Petition No. 88 of 1981 was treated as the main matter. The evidence was recorded in the said Claim Petition. 3.3 The matter was contested by GSRTC. However, the driver of the GSRTC did not remain present despite service and therefore, the claim petitions were required to be proceeded in his absence. A reply was filed by the GSRCT at Exh.11, wherein it is contended that the claim is very much exaggerated one and that the driver of the S.T. Bus was not negligent. Alternatively, it was contended that the deceased - Gopaldas Prabhudas had contributed to the accident and as such, the Tribunal should assess his contributory negligence. 3.4 The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the rival contentions of both the sides, was pleased to frame the following issue at Exh.12:— “1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died in a vehicular accident due to rash and/or negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. ST Bus No. GRS 7740 in question by the driver/opponent No. 2? 2. Whether the opponent No. 1 could be held vicariously liable? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed or any amount? 4. What award and against whom? 3.5 The Tribunal answered the aforesaid Issues as under:— “1. In the affirmative. 2. In the affirmative. 3. First Part: Yes. 4. Second part: MACP No. 88/81: Rs. 70,000/- MACP No. 89/81: Rs. 66,000/-” 3.6 It is to be noted that the claimants have not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC in both these appeals vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not holding the driver of the motorcycle negligent. She submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the bus driver 100% responsible for the accident in question. In this regard, she invited attention of the Court to the relevant discussion made in Paras-9, 10, 11 and 12. For ready perusal, the said Paras are reproduced hereunder:— “9... She submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the bus driver 100% responsible for the accident in question. In this regard, she invited attention of the Court to the relevant discussion made in Paras-9, 10, 11 and 12. For ready perusal, the said Paras are reproduced hereunder:— “9... The respective applicants No. 1 i.e. the widows of the deceased have deposed to at exs.23 and 24. However, they are not eye witnesses and hence their testimony will be of little help for the issue under discussion. We have at ex.25 the deposition of Mehendrakumar Ishwarlal who was an eye-witness. He was waiting for a bus at the aforesaid sign board. He knew the deceased R.F.O. He saw both the deceased riding towards Una on the said motorcycle as they passed by him. The motorcycle had gone about 100 ft. or so ahead towards Una when he saw the on coming bus knocking them down. It is his clear say that it was the bus driver who was negligent. According to this witness, the bus driver had brought the bus on wrong side and was driving the same inspite of a curve at that place in great speed. After knocking down the motorcycle the bus had dragged it upto a distance of 20 to 22 ft. 10.. The panchnama of the scene of the incident produced at ex.37 more or less bears out his testimony. Brake marks were found visible by the panchas at the spot and they were extending upto 21 ft. The panchas have also notice that the bus had come from left side of the road towards right. 11. As mentioned earlier, the driver of the bus has not cared to remain present. Besides the victims of the incident and eye-witness, if there be any only the driver of the offending vehicle would be the remaining person to have personal knowledge about the incident. He does not care to come forward. Necessarily we have to accept the version given out by the other side. Learned Advocate Shri Shukla had attempted to weaken the testimony of the said eye witness during cross examination, but has not succeeded in it. 12.. He does not care to come forward. Necessarily we have to accept the version given out by the other side. Learned Advocate Shri Shukla had attempted to weaken the testimony of the said eye witness during cross examination, but has not succeeded in it. 12.. So far as the plea of the S.T. Corporation that the driver of the motorcycle had contributed to the incident is concerned, we have the clear say of the said eye witness that the motorcycle was being driven at a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. The aforesaid position found out in the panchnama supports this. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that it was the S.T. driver who was responsible for the incident and that the motorcyclist has not contributed anything towards the incident. The issue is answered accordingly.” 4.1 After appreciating the facts as recorded in the aforesaid Paras, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that it was the driver of the S.T. Bus who was responsible for the accident and as he was in employment of the GSRTC, the S.T. Corporation is vicariously liable for the act done by its employee’ driver of the S.T. Bus. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating a very important aspect of the matter, viz. the bus was proceeding from Una to Tulshishyam and the motorcycle was proceeding from Tulshishyam to Una and hence, for all practical purposes, it was a ‘head on collision’ and the S.T. Bus stopped after crossing entire road, as is clear from the panchnama and it is borne out that it was only the rear wheels of the S.T. Bus were on road whereas the entire bus was on kutcha shoulder of the road on the right hand side. Learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC submitted that as there were break marks for about 21 ft., shows that the bus driver tried to avoid the accident by applying breaks, but only on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle that the accident could not be avoided. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC submitted that as there were break marks for about 21 ft., shows that the bus driver tried to avoid the accident by applying breaks, but only on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle that the accident could not be avoided. 6. The aforesaid submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC is found to be note acceptable inasmuch as, the impact of the dash to the motorcycle by the bus is evident from the fact that both, i.e. driver and the pillion rider of the motorcycle have died. Besides, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that one of the witnesses - Mahendra kumar Ishwarlal, examined at Exh.25, has deposed that, ‘He was waiting for a bus at the aforesaid sign board. He knew the deceased R.F.O. He saw both the deceased going towards Una on the said motorcycle as they passed by him. The motorcycle had gone about 100 ft. or so ahead towards Una when he saw the on coming bus knocking them down. He has clearly stated that it was the S.T. Bus driver who was negligent. 6.1 He has also stated that:— “.... the bus driver had brought the bus on wrong side and was driving the same inspite of a curve at that place in great speed. After knocking down the motorcycle the bus had dragged it upto a distance of 20 to 22 ft.” (emphasis supplied) 6.2 The very fact that after the motorcycle was hit by the bus, it was dragged to a distance of 20 to 22 ft., shows that the bus was not able to stop even after causing the accident. 6.3 The Tribunal has considered all relevant material on this aspect in detail and therefore, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC invited attention of the Court to depositions of two widows - Exhs.23 and 24, panchnama - Exh.37, postmortem report - Exh.26, deposition of Shri Karshanbhai - shop owner and other relevant material. However, the same is of no avail to the appellant - GSRTC. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Buch for learned Senior Advocate Mr. However, the same is of no avail to the appellant - GSRTC. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Buch for learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati submitted that the Tribunal has passed just and fair award and the same is passed after taking into consideration all relevant aspects and therefore, the appeals are not required to be entertained. He submitted that it was on account of sad demise of the sole bread earner of the families that the families were not able to carry the matter in appeal, though according to them, there was a scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds that the appeals have no substance and hence, the same are dismissed.