Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11/2/1998 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana in Claim Petition No.171/1993. 2. On 13/9/1993 there was head on collision involving the state transport bus bearing Registration No.MWR 171 and the Matador bearing Registration No.MTV 5383 on the public road within the jurisdiction of police station Nandura. Shaikh Rashid and one another travelling in the matador sustained injuries and died. His wife and minor son claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The necessary evidence was adduced before the learned Tribunal. After considering the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that it was head on collision and drivers of both the vehicles equally contributed in causing the accident. Considering the age and income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.58,000/-inclusive of "no fault liability". While passing the award, this liability has been apportioned in the ratio of 50 -50 per cent amongst opponent no.1 on the one hand and opponent nos.2 and 3 on the other. This very judgment and award is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Mr. G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the responsibility of paying the compensation on the appellant. According to him, it was the negligence of the driver of matador which caused the accident. In that view of the matter, no liability ought to have been saddled upon the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the judgment and award by contending that the learned Tribunal has assigned proper reasons for arriving at the conclusion that drivers of both the vehicles equally contributed in causing the accident. He, therefore, urged that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal may not be interfered with. 6. It is not disputed that it was a head on collision of the matador and the state transport bus. The learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of Mohammad Ibrahim (C.W.3) and also meticulously gone through the recitals in the spot panchanama (Exh.41). Mohammad Ibrahim (C.W.3) deposed that he was travelling in said ill-fated matador. It was being driven in a slow speed. Even it was not occupying the entire road. At that time, the state transport bus came from opposite direction and dashed against the matador. Mohammad Ibrahim (C.W.3) deposed that he was travelling in said ill-fated matador. It was being driven in a slow speed. Even it was not occupying the entire road. At that time, the state transport bus came from opposite direction and dashed against the matador. He did not hesitate in deposing that because of negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles accident occurred. Although he was cross examined at length, nothing surfaced in it to dislodge his testimony. The road where accident occurred has a width of 16 feet. As per the recitals in the panchanama, the matador was occupying the portion of the road of only 6 feet and the remaining portion was occupied by the bus. The learned Tribunal also referred the evidence of panch witness namely Gopal Sonone (C.W.2) and observed that : "The evidence given by the panch witness Gopal Sonone in claim petition No.171/1993 and the panchanama which is duly proved in this case, show that the width of the road is about 16 ft. on the spot, where the accident took place. The evidence further shows that both the vehicles had collided with each other from front side, and particularly on the drivers' side. Most of the damage was caused to the vehicles on the front side. This evidence shows that there was sufficient space for passing the two vehicles at one and the same time, but the head on collision took place. The panchanama shows that there is a curve to the road. It is clear that the drivers of both the vehicles did not take sufficient care even when there was a curve to the road just prior to the spot where the accident took place. This evidence is sufficient to prove that both the drivers were driving there respective vehicles rashly and negligently, and they equally contributed to the accident." 7. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is very much consistent with the evidence on the record. As regards quantum of compensation, a very meager amount of Rs.58,000/-inclusive of "no fault liability" has been awarded. The liability of the appellant is restricted to 50 % of the said amount. Thus the appeal lacks merit. 8. Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.