JUDGMENT Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 30th April, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Veravalin Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1749 of 1999, whereby appellant No. 2 is held solely negligent in happening of the accident and respondent No. 3 exonerated. The appellants have also challenged the compensation quantified by the Tribunal. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal are not many and move in narrow compass, which are as under: On 21st June, 1997 at about 1.00 p.m. Mr. Hussainbhai Ibrahimbhai, who is son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was travelling in the S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-Z-3158 as a passenger. The S.T. Bus was of the ownership of appellant No. 1-Corporation and appellant No. 2 was a driver of the said S.T. bus the deceased was sitting in the rear part of the S.T. Bus. Respondent No. 3 came with a truck bearing registration No. GTY-7000 in rough and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed with the rear portion of the S.T. Bus. As a result, rear portion was ripped apart and the deceased, who was sitting in the rear part sustained serious head injuries and died. The claimants being parents of the deceased, preferred claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1749 of 1999 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Veraval claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000. By impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has exonerated respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and respondent No. 2-Driver of the S.T. Bus held solely responsible for happening of the accident and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 2,17,900 with 6% interest and proportionate cost jointly and severally to the claimants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the fastening of the liability of payment of compensation, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and award in this appeal. 2. I have heard Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. L.R. Pathan, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mrs. Nisha Parikh, learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Advocate for respondent No. 5 - Insurance Company. 3. Mrs. 2. I have heard Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. L.R. Pathan, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mrs. Nisha Parikh, learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Advocate for respondent No. 5 - Insurance Company. 3. Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in fastening the complete liability on the appellants, which is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence available on the record. She has further submitted that respondent No. 3 was also contributorily responsible for happening of the accident as it evident from the oral evidence of appellant No. 2 and panchnama of place of accident. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 5-Insurance Company has argued on the basis of oral evidence of appellant No. 2 that it was the appellant No. 2 alone, who was responsible for happening of the accident and no negligence is attributable to the driver of the truck. It is further contended that appellant No. 2 himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he had taken the bus on the left hand side and, therefore, rear portion had come on the right side and had he kept the bus straight, accident would not have happened and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal for fastening liability of occurrence of the accident, do not require any interference in this appeal. Hence, this appeal may be dismissed. 5. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. It is explicitly clear from the impugned judgment and award more particularly Para-6 that learned Tribunal has heavily relied upon the cross-examination of appellant No. 2 for recording the finding that the accident had taken place solely due to negligence on the part of appellant No. 2. I have gone through overall evidence of appellant No. 2 in its entirety. I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal has considered the oral testimony of appellant No. 2 in a truncated manner and read certain portion of the cross-examination in isolation. If the oral evidence of appellant No. 2 is read in entirety and in its proper perspective, the finding recorded by the Tribunal for fastening the liability on appellants, cannot be sustained. If the oral evidence of appellant No. 2 is read in entirety and in its proper perspective, the finding recorded by the Tribunal for fastening the liability on appellants, cannot be sustained. Appellant No. 2 has stated in his cross-examination a hypothetical question that if the bus was taken on the left side, the rear portion could come on right side. Not only that, he has stated that if the bus proceeds straight, the accident would not have happened. Thus, if the depositions more particularly cross-examination of appellant No. 2 is read in a holistic manner, the picture as to how the accident had happened becomes very vivid. It is clear from the deposition of appellant No. 2 that after the accident, he had taken the bus on the left hand side to check as to what had happened. The contention of respondent No. 5 that the accident had happened only because appellant No. 2 had taken the bus on the left hand side, cannot be sustained. It is manifestly clear that respondent No. 3 came from the opposite direction at high speed, though the on coming S.T. Bus was visible as there was no vehicle in-between and dashed with rear portion of the bus where the deceased was sitting and caused fatal head injuries to him. Impact of the accident was so huge that rear portion of the bus was ripped apart. In the background of these facts, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed serious error in completely exonerating respondent No. 3 for happening of the accident and fastening entire liability on appellant No. 2. Considering the ocular evidence on record, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 3 was responsible to the extent of 40% for happening of the accident while appellant No. 2 can be said to have contributed to 60% for occurrence of the accident. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. In the premises aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30th April, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Veraval in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1749 of 1999 is hereby modified and liability of happening of the accident is apportioned between appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 3 in the ratio of 60% and 40% respectively. The impugned judgment and award dated 30th April, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Veraval in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1749 of 1999 is hereby modified and liability of happening of the accident is apportioned between appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 3 in the ratio of 60% and 40% respectively. This being a case of composite negligence so far as respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original claimants, the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are hereby directed to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal by impugned judgment and award jointly and severally. Inter se liability of appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is fixed at 60% and 40% respectively. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Registry is hereby directed to transmit the amount, if any, deposited in this Court, to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.