JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhuj-Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 126/2014, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 2. Heard Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned counsel for the respondents - original claimants. Though served, no one appears for respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the parties state that, the short issue arises in this appeal only on the ground of negligence and therefore, as the liability is not denied by the appellant, presence of respondent No. 4 being owner of Tata Sumo car is not essential for deciding this appeal. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal be heard for final disposal. 3. In light of the aforesaid facts and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for its final disposal. 4. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:- 4.1 That on 16.03.2014, the deceased - Karshan @ Shakara Suja Rabari was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-12-BS-2733 along with others and when they reached near the place of accident, one Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. GJ-08-F-1455 came in rash and negligent manner and driver of said Tata Sumo car without showing signal light or indicator, suddenly took a turn. Therefore, the deceased to avoid the accident had stopped his motorcycle, however, the driver of Tata Sumo car dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased received severe injuries and died during the treatment. 4.2 Pursuant to the said accident, FIR being C.R. No. I-28/2014 came to be lodged with Mankuva Police Station. 4.3 The claimants preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act and claimed Rs. 40,00,000/-, wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,51,750/- alongwith proportionate costs and interest at the rate 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 4.4 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - Insurance Company has filed present appeal. 5. 40,00,000/-, wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,51,750/- alongwith proportionate costs and interest at the rate 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 4.4 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - Insurance Company has filed present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised following contentions:- (i) That the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence in form of FIR at Exh:41 and Panchnama at Exh:42; (ii) That the Tribunal as such has not properly considered the manner in which the accident has occurred and that, without assigning any reason, has come to the conclusion that the driver of Tata Sumo car was negligent to the tune of 95%; (iii) That, as such upon reading the Panchnama at Exh:42, driver of Tata Sumo car as well as deceased (driver of Motorcycle) both were equally negligent; On the abovementioned contentions, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be allowed and driver of Motorcycle should be held negligent to the extent of 50% and the judgment and award may kindly be modified accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned counsel for the claimants has opposed this appeal vehemently. He contended that, the Tribunal has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of Tata Sumo car was negligent to the tune of 95%. He contended that, even in the panchnama itself, it is recorded that the Tata Sumo car without giving any signal or indicator suddenly took the turn and because of this sudden act, the motorcycle of the deceased dashed with the Tata Sumo car, which was being driven in moderate speed and it is on correct side. Therefore, the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Upon considering the submissions made and on perusal of the FIR at Exh:41 and the Panchnama at Exh:42, it appears that the manner in which the accident has occurred, driver side of Sumo car is damaged and even the door of the driver side got the dent and glass and window of the driver side is broken. Even the leg stand to enter into Sumo car is also broken. The said fact indicates that the driver of motorcycle (deceased) was also driving at an excessive speed and therefore, the deceased was also negligent. Even the leg stand to enter into Sumo car is also broken. The said fact indicates that the driver of motorcycle (deceased) was also driving at an excessive speed and therefore, the deceased was also negligent. The Tribunal has contributed only 5% negligent to the deceased as driver of motorcycle. 8. Upon reappreciating the evidence on record, more particularly, the Panchnama at Exh:42 and considering the impact of motorcycle on bigger vehicle like Sumo car though the motorcycle was a small vehicle, driver of motorcycle (deceased) should be held to be negligent to the extent of 10%. 9. Upon reappreciating the contents of the Panchnama at Exh:42 and also looking to the effect and impact of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that driver of Sumo car was more negligent than the driver of the motorcycle and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that driver of Sumo car bearing registration No. GJ-08-F-1455 was negligent to the extent of 90%, whereas the deceased being driver of motorcycle was negligent to the extent of 10%. 10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the respondents claimants would be entitled to compensation as under:- Rs.22,65,000/- Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,26,500/- 10% deduction as the deceased is negligent to the extent of 10% --------------- Final amount Rs. 20,38,500/- 11. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to obtain total compensation of Rs. 20,38,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall refund a sum of Rs. 1,13,250/- along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization to the appellant - Insurance Company within a period of 8 weeks from today. 12. For the foregoing, the appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. Record and proceedings be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.