JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. The captioned First Appeal is filed by the State Transport Corporation to challenge the judgment and award dated 7.9.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 16th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Vadodara at Savli (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No.1419 of 2015 (Old M.A.C.P. No.424 of 2011). 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the original claimants (hereinafter referred to as the “original claimants”) preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1419 of 2015 (Old M.A.C.P. No.424 of 2011) before the Tribunal inter alia praying for compensation for an amount of Rs.40 lakhs. 2.1 It has been stated in the application that Madhavbhai Dalpatbhai Makwana (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) husband of claimant No.1, while returning from his duty and while reaching the cut near Village: Paanchdevla on Halol – Vadodara State Highway, the S.T. Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-Y-3516, driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle driven by the Madhavbhai Dalpatbhai Makwana, as a result whereof, Madhavbhai Dalpatbhai Makwana (now deceased) died on the spot. 2.2 Apropos the said incident, claimants have preferred the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.40 lakhs. The Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the claimants proved the involvement of the vehicles in the accident, as alleged ? (ii) Whether the claimants prove that, deceased sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles involved in this accident and that resulted in to the death? (iii)Whether claimants are entitled to any amount of compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom? (iv) What order? 3. Issue Nos.1 and 2 have been answered in affirmative and as regards Issue Nos.3 and 4, Tribunal has issued directions as per the final order. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the issue of negligence raised by the appellant was an afterthought inasmuch as, it was raised for the first time in the deposition of the driver, in the year 2017. The Tribunal, considered the evidence available on record and more particularly, (i) Exh.15 – FIR lodged with Vaghodia Police Station, District: Vadodara; (ii) Exh.16 – Panchnama drawn immediately after the accident took place; (iii) Exh.17 - Inquest Panchnama; and (iv) Exh.18/A - the postmortem report of the deceased. 5. The Tribunal, considered the evidence available on record and more particularly, (i) Exh.15 – FIR lodged with Vaghodia Police Station, District: Vadodara; (ii) Exh.16 – Panchnama drawn immediately after the accident took place; (iii) Exh.17 - Inquest Panchnama; and (iv) Exh.18/A - the postmortem report of the deceased. 5. The Tribunal, after considering all the evidence and material available on the record, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation for an amount of Rs.20,22,550/-, including funeral expenses and other conventional heads. The Tribunal has categorically come to the conclusion that the appellant was solely negligent, considering the fact that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal further observed that had the driver been careful and attentive, the accident would not have taken place, resulting into the unfortunate death. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the captioned appeal on the sole ground of negligence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed serious error in holding that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the bus driver. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have attributed some negligence to the deceased. The said contention is based on only one fact or assertion viz. the deceased was under the influence of the alcohol, as a result of which the accident has taken place and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have attributed negligence to the deceased as well. Learned counsel further submitted that by not doing so and holding the appellant negligent to the extent of 100%, the Tribunal has committed serious error. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the solitary ground of challenge to the judgment and award is that the Tribunal ought to have attributed negligence to the deceased inasmuch as, the deceased was, allegedly, in drunken condition at the relevant time and which caused the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that bare perusal of the written statement dated 8.12.2014, Exh.8, filed by the appellant, clearly suggests that except denying the averments and statements in the claim petition, there is not a whisper about deceased being under the influence of alcohol. Learned counsel further submitted that bare perusal of the written statement dated 8.12.2014, Exh.8, filed by the appellant, clearly suggests that except denying the averments and statements in the claim petition, there is not a whisper about deceased being under the influence of alcohol. Learned counsel further submitted that the theory of the deceased being under the influence of alcohol has been raised for the first time in the year 2017 and that it was never the case of the appellant earlier that the accident took place because of the fault of the deceased, since the deceased was in a drunken condition. Learned counsel for the claimants lastly submitted that the appellant having failed to prove the aspect of negligence and the judgment and award having been challenged on the limited and sole ground of negligence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. This Court, with a view to ascertaining certain aspects, directed the Registry to call for the Record & Proceedings of M.A.C.P. No.1419 of 2015 (old M.A.C.P. No.424 of 2011), which was received by this court and this court has considered the same. 10. It is relevant to note that neither the heads / items (under which compensation is granted) nor the quantification (amount awarded in respect of each head / item) are challenged. The appeal is based on only one ground viz. Negligence. 11. The material on record, including the Record & Proceedings, would suggest that the conclusion of the Tribunal with respect to negligence calls for no interference. 12. The appellant has examined the driver. The deposition and the cross-examination of the driver do not take the case of the appellant – S.T. Corporation any further. 13. Though the driver, in his examination-in-chief has stated that it was the deceased, who was driving motorcycle in negligent manner inasmuch as, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, while in his cross-examination, the driver has admitted that he has not given any statement and/or complaint before the Police Station or before any authorities, immediately or thereafter, about the said misconduct on the part of the deceased being under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. 14. 14. Adverting to the contention of the deceased being under the influence of alcohol, the appellant has not been able to prove the same, except raising the contention and that too at the belated stage i.e. at fag end of the trial. 15. In fact, the record suggests otherwise, for, the postmortem report of the deceased does not indicate presence of alcohol. 16. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly observed that no where in the postmortem report, the consumption of alcohol is found. Moreover, the said contention on the part of the appellant about deceased being in a drunken state is fallacious, considering the fact that the deceased, few minutes back had managed the traffic congestion, which had taken place due to the another accident occurred on Vadodara – Halol road. After managing and clearing the traffic, the deceased had left the place after informing Shri Pravinsinh Bharatbhai Jadav, who was on the night-duty in the ambulance, which has reached the place of the accident, occurred prior to the accident in question. 17. In the FIR lodged by Shri Pravinsinh Bharatbhai Jadav, it is recorded that on receiving the message of the accident, the deceased has reached the place, and has managed and cleared the traffic and immediately after leaving the place of accident, the deceased met with an accident with the offending vehicle near the cut of Paanchdevla Village. It is true that the claimants have not examined any witness, however, it is equally true that though the driver has stepped into the witness-box, the appellant has not been able to prove the aspect of the negligence to be attributed to the deceased. Considering such facts and also considering that as driver of a heavier vehicle, in the present case the S.T. Bus driver owes greater onus to take care, the negligence, in our opinion, is correctly decided by the Tribunal. 18. The record further reveals that it was for the first time in the year 2017 that the issue, of deceased being under the influence of alcohol, has been raised but not proved. The said issue raised by the appellant – S.T. Corporation is nothing, but an afterthought theory, only with a view to attributing negligence to the deceased in causing the accident and only with a view to escaping the liability of compensation. The said issue raised by the appellant – S.T. Corporation is nothing, but an afterthought theory, only with a view to attributing negligence to the deceased in causing the accident and only with a view to escaping the liability of compensation. From the Panchnama Exh.16, it is evident from the position of the vehicles, it is the bus, which was driven in rash and negligent manner and that the deceased was on the correct side of the road. 19. The appeal filed by the appellant is restricted only qua the negligence. On overall consideration of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in evaluating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the appellant was negligent to the extent of 100%. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant has not raised any grounds as regards the error committed by the Tribunal in computing the compensation. 20. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed. 21. In view of dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil Application (For Stay) also does not survive and stands disposed of. 22. Record & Proceedings of M.A.C.P. No.1419 of 2015 (Old M.A.C.P. No.424 of 2011) is directed to be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 16th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Vadodara at Savli forthwith.