JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. This appeal challenges judgment and order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, in MACP No..259 of 2001, whereby the petition filed by claimant viz. Snehal was allowed with proportionate cost, thus : 1. The petition is partly allowed with proportionate cost. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.5,92,775/as compensation, including the no fault liability with interest @ Rs.9 % p.a. from the date of filing of petition till realization of the entire amount. 3. The interest shall be charged after deducting the amount paid to the petitioner as NFL. 4. The payment of amount shall be made as under : (a) A cross cheque of Rs.4,00,000/be issued in the name of the Banker of the choice of the petitioner for investing the said amount in FDR for a period of 5 years in the name of the petitioner. (b) Another cheque for the remaining amount be issued in the name of the petitioner. 5. Both cheques shall be deposited with the Tribunal for entrusting the same to the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case in a nut shell are as under, thus: Claimant – Snehal, who was 16 years old student, with her friend viz. Tripti Umare were riding on Luna Moped bearing registration No. MH30/A/3692. The said Lune Moped was being driven by Tripti. When they had reached Dental College, one Minidoor bearing registration No.MH30/E/5055 laden with gas cylinders, came from opposite direction. Though Luna Moped was heading by left side of the road, the offending vehicle had come to the wrong direction and gave heavy dash to Luna Moped. As a result of which, both claimant and Tripti, who were students at the relevant time, fell on the road unconscious. They had received grievous injuries. Claimant – Snehal had suffered lower mandible fracture and her 7 teeth from the lower jaw were dislocated. She was immediately taken to the Intensive Care Unit of the Critical Care Centre at Akola where she was treated for her injury to brain as she had lost her memory. The left eye ball of the claimant got changed its position and her face was considerably disfigured due to the injuries she had received. She was immediately taken to the Intensive Care Unit of the Critical Care Centre at Akola where she was treated for her injury to brain as she had lost her memory. The left eye ball of the claimant got changed its position and her face was considerably disfigured due to the injuries she had received. She had scored 84.26% marks in 10th Standard and was admitted in 12th Standard (in Science Faculty). Though the claimant had appeared twice, she could not pass in the 12th Standard examination due the vehicular accident. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the parents of the claimant had spent huge expenses over the treatment of the claimant and had to undergo lot of pains due to the permanent disability caused to the claimant. 5. I have heard the submission of the rival parties. Learned Member of the MACT has recorded the finding of fact that the accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Minidoor. The learned Member of the MACT has awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs.5,92,775/considering the fact and the ruling cited before him inclusive of no fault liability and together with interest @ 9% per annum till realization of the entire amount. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company assailed the finding on the ground that the learned Member of MACT committed an error to hold that the appellant, owner and driver of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. According to learned counsel, learned Member of the MACT should have recorded the finding as to contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Luna Moped. 7. I have perused the evidence led before the Tribunal to examine as to whether the learned Member of the MACT committed an error of law. 8. Witness No.1 for the claimant Dr. Manoj Jain, having decree in M.Ch. in Neurosurgey, deposed in his chief examination about the injuries suffered by the claimant. He deposed about medical treatment given to the claimant. He deposed that at the time of admission she was in coma and when she was admitted to the hospital, C.T. Scan had already been done. He had given diagnosis that the claimant had suffered diffuse Axanor injury and as such she was in coma for two weeks and that her injury was not likely to be repaired soon. He deposed that at the time of admission she was in coma and when she was admitted to the hospital, C.T. Scan had already been done. He had given diagnosis that the claimant had suffered diffuse Axanor injury and as such she was in coma for two weeks and that her injury was not likely to be repaired soon. Second witness No.2 Dr. Nandkishor Ramulal who also deposed about the nature of medical treatment received by the claimant as emergency patient. He deposed that the claimant was in coma and required intensive medical treatment while witness No.3 for the claimant Sudhir Tanna deposed about the treatment given to the claimant whereas eye witness to the incident viz. Kishore Thanvi was also examined indicating that when he was coming from Gorakshan Road and had reached near Gorakshan Sansthan, he had seen two girls on Luna Moped moving towards Nehru Park. He deposed one auto rickshaw laden with gas cylinders had come from opposite direction and given dashed to the Luna. According to the eye witness, since the driver of the auto rickshaw had lost control, there was accident between Luna and auto rickshaw. He was cross examined. He could not deposed about from which direction the Luna was coming but he is an important eye witness who saw that the driver of the offending motor vehicle lost his control over the vehicle and dashed against the Lune. Witness No.5 for the claimant Arun Gawai was also examined. He deposed that he had heard the sound of the gas cylinders falling from the auto rickshaw and also saw the gas cylinders were scattered on the spot. He found the auto rickshaw had overturned on the spot of accident and luna was lying there. The witness Arun Gawai also deposed as to how the injured girl was taken to the hospital. Thus, there was ample evidence to indicate that it was the driver of the offending motor vehicle who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. As as result of which, the accident took place. No evidence is led as to believe that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Luna or to indicate that it was on wrong side of the road. As as result of which, the accident took place. No evidence is led as to believe that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Luna or to indicate that it was on wrong side of the road. To impute contributory negligence upon the driver of the Luna which was dashed by the Minidoor, according to learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company there was collusion between Luna and Minidoor. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate this from the record. Although injuries were caused due to the accident, no appeal has been preferred challenging quantum of compensation. The claimant has not preferred any appeal nor any cross objection is filed. That being so, no ground is made out to interfere in the judgment and order impugned in this appeal and since the findings recorded by the learned Member of the MACT appear based upon the cogent evidence led before it , the first appeal is found without merits and stands dismissed with costs.