JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Bhatt for the appellants and learned Advocates Mr. Mazmudar, Mr. Karia and Mr. Mishra for the concerned Respondent/s. Perused the record. 2. Both these appeals are arising out of the same accident and since they were disposed of by the Tribunal by common judgment and award dated 25.5.2016, they are heard together by this common judgment. 3. Incidentally, though claim petitions are different, the parties are common in both the petitions and appeals because both the claim petitions are filed by the widow mother and minor son and brother respectively of the deceased victims of the accident who are father and son. Thereby, husband and minor son of the main applicant in both the appeals have expired in the same accident. 4. The appellant herein is ST Corporation whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original claimants, respondent No. 3 is driver of the Bus and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are respectively driver, owner and insurer of another vehicle involved in the accident being Rickshaw No. GJ-7VW-9939. The appellant has preferred these appeals mainly on two grounds i.e. (i) percentage of contributory negligence between the driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident and (ii) quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Thereby, so far as claimants are concerned, this is a case of composite negligence between two different tort-feasors and, therefore, irrespective of their inter se negligence in causing the accident, the claimants are entitled to receive full set of compensation from either of the tortfeasor and in turn, owner and insurer of vehicles involved in the accident. However, when appellant - ST Corporation has exempted from getting their vehicle insured, and thereby, when amount of compensation is to be paid by them, they are keen to contest the appeals so as to fix the negligence and, thereby, liability to pay compensation by driver, owner and insurer of another vehicle which was involved in the accident. 5. It is undisputed fact that on 16.8.2013, husband of the appellant No. 1 namely; Alpesh Kanaiyalal Barot was travelling in Rickshaw No. GJ-7VW-9939 with his minor son Yash. 5. It is undisputed fact that on 16.8.2013, husband of the appellant No. 1 namely; Alpesh Kanaiyalal Barot was travelling in Rickshaw No. GJ-7VW-9939 with his minor son Yash. The claimants have pleaded in the petition that when Rickshaw driver was driving his Rickshaw in slow speed and on its correct side of road on Nadiad - Mahemdavad highway, near village Adhej, the driver of ST Bus No. GJ-18-Y-7520 had came in full speed and driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed with the Rickshaw which resulted into fatal injuries to both the victims. Therefore, for death of the husband, widow mother and minor son have preferred Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 623/2013 claiming an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation. Whereas, Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 624/2013 was preferred by mother and minor brother of the deceased victim, minor Yash claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 6. The claimants have joined driver and owner of the ST Corporation; so also owner and insurer of Rickshaw as opponents in both the claim petitions. 7. After allowing both the sides to adduce evidence, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,40,280/- in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 623/2013 for the death of Alpesh Kanaiyalal Barot and an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the death of minor Yash Alpesh Barot by impugned judgment and award dated 25.5.2016. 8. So far as inter se liability between ST Bus and Rickshaw, the Tribunal has held that accident occurred because of sole negligence of the ST Bus driver and, therefore, fixed the liability of ST Corporation to pay entire amount of compensation and, thereby exonerated the driver, owner and insurer of the Rickshaw from the liability to pay compensation. Being aggrieved by such decision, the appellant has preferred these appeals. 9. Being aggrieved by such decision, the appellant has preferred these appeals. 9. Before discussing the evidence and contents in the appeals by the appellants, it would be appropriate to recollect here that because of the same incident of vehicular accident between two vehicles as narrated hereinabove, there were in all 12 claim petitions preferred by different claimants amongst which Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 623 and 624 of 2013 were preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Anand considering the residence of claimants' herein whereas rest of the 10 petitions which are listed herein were preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad and they were decided by common judgment and order dated 21.1.2017 wherein also the Tribunal has fixed the liability of present appellant only relying upon the impugned award herein and awarded different amount as disclosed hereunder:- Sr. No. MACP No. AMOUN AWARDED RS. 3 1195/2013 7,44,000/- 4 1226/2013 7,86,000/- 5 1227/2013 9,37,200/- 6 1327/2013 8,80,500/- 7 1346/2013 8,33,250/- 8 1347/2013 8,33,250/- 9 1116/2013 5,82,000/- 10 1177/2013 7,81,000/- 11 998/2013 2,55,000/- 12 1095/2013 9,42,000/- Total 75,74,200/- 10. During the course of submissions by both the sides, it has been submitted by the appellant as well as respondent No. 6 - Insurance Company of Rickshaw that till date such award has not been challenged by filing any appeal by any litigant. Therefore, practically, those awards are now final. Though such award dated 21.1.2017 is based upon the impugned award herein, technically speaking, if those awards are not under challenge by either of the party including present appellant and, thereby if present appellant has accepted the award in such group of matters, wherein, amount of compensation awarded is between Rs. 2,55,000/- and Rs. 9,42,000/- and, thereby, when total amount of award in those group cases is Rs. 75,74,200/-, there is reason to believe that when appellant has accepted those award and paid total amount of Rs. 75,74,200/- plus interest and cost; practically, there is no reason or substance to proceed further in these appeals. However, learned Advocate for the appellant is keen to proceed further in the appeal and to get an order on merits regarding inter se negligence of two drivers. 11. 75,74,200/- plus interest and cost; practically, there is no reason or substance to proceed further in these appeals. However, learned Advocate for the appellant is keen to proceed further in the appeal and to get an order on merits regarding inter se negligence of two drivers. 11. In view of above position, let us examine the issue regarding negligence so as to verify that whether there is any reason to interfere with in the award in two claim petitions only when such negligence is accepted by the appellant in other ten petitions. 12. The sum and substance of the appellant's claim before this Court so far as issue of negligence is concerned is to the effect that there were fourteen passengers travelling in the Rickshaw which was involved in the accident and out of fourteen when eleven persons had died on the spot, it is to be presumed that Rickshaw driver was negligent and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to exonerate the driver, owner and insurer of such Rickshaw. In support of such submission, appellant is relying upon the FIR - Complaint dated 16.8.2013; copy of which is produced on record at Exh. 43. The perusal of Complaint makes it clear that Complaint was given by one Bharat Jayesh Chauhan who was Sarpanch of village Devdi Vansol at the relevant time, who has disclosed in his Complaint to the PI, Nadiad (Rural) Police Station that when he was sitting in the Sim of Village with other village people, he show several persons going towards bus stand and that after sometime, he received phone call from Sarpanch of village Adhej namely; Balvantbhai that there was accident between Rickshaw No. GJ-7VW-9939 and ST Bus No. GJ-18-Y7520 wherein 11 persons were died and 3 were seriously injured. Therefore, though it is disclosed by the Complainant in his Complaint that fourteen persons were travelling in Rickshaw, it is nothing but hearsay and the manner in which the accident has taken is disclosed by the Complainant as based upon information received by him, since he was not eye witness and, therefore, except confirmation that there was vehicular accident as stated in the FIR between two vehicles, rest of the information needs to be properly proved on record by either side who wants to plead and prove something in its favour, in this case the appellant. 13. 13. Whereas Panchnama of the place of accident is at Exh. 44. Perusal of which goes to show that road was 22 feet wide at the place of incident. There were no recent wheel mark and break mark at the place but there were pieces of glass and blood stains at the place whereas Rickshaw was found at the distance of 11 feet from the center of the road on eastern side of the road having damage on its headlight and front part; so also on top roof. It is also disclosed in the Panchnama that practically Rickshaw was totally lost. Whereas, Bus was not found at the place of accident when Panchnama was drawn. It is significant to note that the time of accident is morning hours on 16.8.2013 whereas, Panchnama was drawn on the same day between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. and, therefore, practically, there is no reason for the ST driver,: or the appellant to shift or to take away their vehicle which was involved in the accident before recording of Panchnama so as to confirm the position of both the vehicles immediately after the accident. The shifting of bus from the place of accident itself goes to show that appellant and its Authority were aware that lying the vehicle to remain at the spot of instance, immediately after the incident in the same condition, would result into specific evidence against them and, therefore, they have managed to take away the bus from the place of incident before drawing of Panchnama which was done in couple of hours only. The other relevant factual details are to the effect that the Rickshaw was lying at the distance of 11 feet from the center of the road which is 22 feet wide and that too in its correct side and, thereby when Rickshaw was almost on the edge of the road on its own side and if there is blood mark and broken glass of pieces found near Rickshaw, only because it is stated somewhere in the Panchnama that blood stains were also found in the middle of the road, it cannot be presumed or believed that Rickshaw was plying in the middle of the road. If it is so, there would be other marks on the middle of the road and Rickshaw would also found near middle of the road when it is totally lost. If it is so, there would be other marks on the middle of the road and Rickshaw would also found near middle of the road when it is totally lost. It is also significant to note that Panchnama categorically discloses that there is no break mark on road in any manner whatsoever which goes to show, coupled with the fact that Rickshaw was heavily damaged, that bus must be in full speed since it could not stop so as to avoid impact with the smaller vehicle like Rickshaw. It is known position that a Public Transport Vehicle like ST Bus is having power break and generally such vehicle should stop at the distance of a feet or two, once breaks are properly applied so as to control the vehicle to avoid danger to life of any passerby including persons on foot or smaller vehicles like two and three wheelers. Therefore, the available evidence on record indicates that by all means, the major part of the negligence can be contributed to the ST driver only. However, when ST driver has stepped into the witness box and tried to prove that he was not negligent, it would be appropriate to appreciate his evidence which is taken into care by the Tribunal and even thereafter, Tribunal has came to the conclusion that ST driver was sole negligent. The driver of the ST Bus namely; Gulab Ratanlal Chauhan in his examination in chief at Exh. 58 has tried to state that he was not only negligent since Rickshaw driver was also driving his Rickshaw in rash and negligent manner and that bus driver had tried to overtake a truck before it and while overtaking such truck, it has came on wrong side and dashed with the ST Bus and, therefore, he was not negligent at all. It is also deposed on oath that sitting capacity of the Rickshaw was only about four persons but there was fifteen passengers in the Rickshaw and, therefore, when Rickshaw was plying with more passengers then its capacity, the Rickshaw driver could not control the Rickshaw and, therefore, it has went into wrong side and dashed with ST Bus. 14. It is also deposed on oath that sitting capacity of the Rickshaw was only about four persons but there was fifteen passengers in the Rickshaw and, therefore, when Rickshaw was plying with more passengers then its capacity, the Rickshaw driver could not control the Rickshaw and, therefore, it has went into wrong side and dashed with ST Bus. 14. Therefore, ST driver himself is not clear and certain that how to fix the responsibility of Rickshaw driver and, therefore, he has given two different reasons to support his case that Rickshaw has came on wrong side i.e. (1) Rickshaw driver had tried to overtake the truck and (2) Rickshaw was overloaded. However, considering the available Police papers and investigation by the competent investigating agency, it becomes clear that there is no substance in any such defence by the appellant and its driver, inasmuch as, after investigation, the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet against the ST driver only; copy of which is produced on record at Exh. 46. Perusal of such chargesheet makes it clear that after recording statement of as many as 58 witnesses (as Page 14 of 19 per the chargesheet there are in all 84 witnesses, which includes Panch Witnesses, Doctors and Police personnel concerned with the investigation the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet against ST driver wherein charges are u/Ss. 279 and 304 of IPC read with Section 177 and 184 of the M.V. Act to the effect that ST driver has driven his vehicle in full speed, rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and did not apply the break so as to avoid the accident and committed the offence as per Sections under which chargesheet is filed. 15. Though it is also alleged in the chargesheet that Rickshaw driver has also allowed more passengers then its capacity, it is stated that it amounts to breach of regulations but so far as reason for accident is concerned, the chargesheet specifically confirms that it is because of the negligence of the ST Driver. 16. 15. Though it is also alleged in the chargesheet that Rickshaw driver has also allowed more passengers then its capacity, it is stated that it amounts to breach of regulations but so far as reason for accident is concerned, the chargesheet specifically confirms that it is because of the negligence of the ST Driver. 16. Though it can be said, which is settled legal position, that filing of the chargesheet alone would not be sufficient to confirm the 100% negligence of any such driver when more than one vehicle is involved and that Tribunals are free and empowered to decide the inter se liability of driver of more than one vehicle; the fact remains that when there is prima facie evidence regarding negligence of one particular driver, such driver and his owner shall be careful and vigilant to prove that either their driver is not negligent at all or there is certainly some contribution of other driver. In such circumstances, when investigating agency has filed chargesheet only against ST driver and, thereafter, when ST driver admits in his cross examination that he has not disclosed the story narrated by him in his examination in chief regarding the negligence of Rickshaw driver and filing of false case against him till such deposition, there is reason to believe that such story is coming first time on record only in the form of deposition by the driver and, therefore, in absence of any other supporting oral and documentary evidence, such evidence can certainly be discarded considering the fact that ST driver is one of the affected party and he has no option but to say on oath that he was not negligent. 17. In background of above discussion, if we peruse the impugned award for fixing the 100% liability of ST Driver, the Tribunal has discussed the relevant evidence in detail in paragraph Nos. 13 to 19 and also assigned the reasons for its conclusion that how and why ST Driver is to be considered as sole negligent for the incident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and relied upon the decision in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora, 2001 (3) GLR 2528 . The Tribunal has rightly applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and relied upon the decision in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora, 2001 (3) GLR 2528 . Therefore, when Tribunal has not committed any irregularity or error in concluding that ST driver was sole negligent for the incident, I do not see any reason or substance in the appeal so as to modify such determination only because the award in one of the claim petition is for more than Rs. 15,00,000/-. 18. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, I have perused the available record. I do not find any reason to modify the amount of compensation that can be awarded to the claimant then what is considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, only because there is possibility of some difference in calculation when different persons/Authority considered and calculated the quantum, there is no reason to interfere with in such reasoned award only because appeal is preferred by the ST Corporation. 19. For arriving at the amount of compensation as awarded, the Tribunal has relied upon several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and available evidence on record and Tribunal has assigned detailed reasons for its conclusion so as to arrive at the total amount of compensation as per the award and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with in such award more particularly when for the death of 10 years boy, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,75,000/-. 20. Though the accident is of the year 2013, it cannot be ignored that now pursuant to amendment in the relevant Schedule - II (u/S. 163-A of the MV. Act), the minimum amount of compensation that is to be awarded for the death of human being would be Rs. 5,00,000/- and such amount would be increased by 5% each year. Therefore, I do not see any reason or substance to modify the award even on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded to the widow who has lost her husband and young son of 10 years in the accident. 21. In view of above, there is no substance in the appeals and hence, the same stand dismissed. R. & P. be sent back to the Tribunal at the earliest. Interim Relief if any stands vacated forthwith.