JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 10.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Khambhaliya, the appellant, i.e., S.T. Corporation, has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal- 2.1. That the accident occurred on 18.09.2008 at about 3.30 PM near Parishram Hotel at Khambhalia. That the deceased and one Birju Ashokbhai Gondaliya were travelling in Opel car bearing registration No. GJ-12D-9138, which was being driven by deceased Amitbhai. It is the say of the original claimants that the driver of the ST bus bearing registration No. GJ-18-Y-147 lost control over the vehicle, which was being driven in excessive speed and the same collided with the car. The record indicates that the deceased Ajitbhai sustained severe injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Khambhalia and for further treatment to Jamnagar, however, he was declared dead. It is the case of the original claimants that the accident occurred only because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the ST bus. The FIR came to be registered with Khambhalia police station being I-CR No. 147 of 2008 and the original claimants preferred claim petition under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 21 lakhs. The FIR came to be registered with Khambhalia police station being I-CR No. 147 of 2008 and the original claimants preferred claim petition under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 21 lakhs. The original claimants examined the wife of the deceased Pritiben at exhibit 27 and one Kamlesh Devatbhai Chavda at exhibit 45 and also relied upon documentary evidence such as copy of the FIR at exhibit 29, copy of spot panchnama at exhibit 30, inquest panchnama at exhibit 31, PM note at exhibit 32, report of RTO about accident at exhibit 33, copy of specification letter of RTO of S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GJ-18-U-147 about ownership at exhibit 34, original certificate of deceased at exhibit 35, copy of appointment letter of Aashapura Mine of deceased at exhibit 36, driving license of deceased 37, copy of ration card of claimants at exhibit 38, copy of birth certificate of deceased at exhibit 39, copy of election card of claimant No. 1 at exhibit 40, copy of birth certificate of claimant No. 2 Pritiben at exhibit 41, copy of birth certificate of minor Bhumiben at exhibit 42, copy of birth certificate of minor Hastiben at exhibit 43 and first page of charge-sheet lodged against the opponent No. 1 at exhibit 44. 2.2. The appellant ST Corporation also examined driver of the ST bus Dharmendra Harilal Joshi at exhibit 27. The Tribunal upon appreciating the evidence on record and even considering the deposition of the witness, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the driver of the ST bus as well as Opel car, the deceased, both were negligent in the ratio of 80:20. Considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , determined prospective income to the tune of 40% and after deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,04,800/- as compensation under the head of future loss of dependency and awarded additional compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under different conventional heads including funeral expenses and thus, awarded Rs. 6,04,800/- as compensation under the head of future loss of dependency and awarded additional compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under different conventional heads including funeral expenses and thus, awarded Rs. 6,74,800/- as gross compensation and after deducting 20% towards negligence of the driver of the Opel car, i.e., the deceased, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,39,840/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the appellant ST Corporation. 3. Heard Mr. Hemant Munhsaw, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for the original claimants, respondents No. 1 to 5. Also perused the original record and proceedings. 4. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the driver of the ST bus was negligent to the tune of 50%. Mr. Munshaw further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the Opel car, i.e., the deceased, is negligent only to the extent of 20%. According to Mr. Munshaw, the Tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that the the deceased as driver of the Opel car was negligent at least to the extent of 50%. Mr. Munshaw also relied upon the photograph, which is found in the original record and proceedings and contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence in form of photograph which established the fact that the driver of the motorcar tried to overtake the bus and collided with the bus, which has resulted in the accident. On the aforesaid sole ground, Mr. Munshaw contended that the appeal deserves consideration and the same be allowed and the award be modified as prayed for. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rachh has opposed this appeal. Relying upon the oral evidence of one Kamlesh Devatbhai Chavda at exhibit 45, who is an eyewitness, it was contended that the accident in fact has occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the ST bus. Mr. Rachh contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly not believed the photographs which are not even exhibited. Mr. Rachh submitted that the appeal being meritless, the same deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Rachh contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly not believed the photographs which are not even exhibited. Mr. Rachh submitted that the appeal being meritless, the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Upon considering the record and proceedings and upon considering the submissions made, the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the ST bus was negligent to the extent of 80% and driver of the open car, i.e., the deceased, was negligent to the tune of 20% or not. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the photographs show that the car tried to overtake and that the Tribunal has wrongly considered such piece of evidence, is contrary to the evidence on record. It deserves to be noted that the photographs are not admitted in evidence and not exhibited and the photographs indicate the position after the accident. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the deposition of Dharmendra Harilal Joshi, respondent No. 6 herein who happens to be the driver of the ST bus involved in the accident. Though Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellant tried to contend that the driver of the Opel car tried to overtake the bus, the said contention is thoroughly misconceived and contrary to the evidence of the driver of the appellant's ST bus. Even in the examination-in-chief, respondent No. 6, driver of ST bus categorically stated that the car was coming from the opposite side. Even in his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that both the vehicles dashed with each other. Therefore, the very contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is incorrect and contrary to the evidence on record. Upon appreciating the spot panchnama at exhibit 30, it clearly establishes the fact that the impact of the collusion of ST bus with Opel car was so severe that the door of the driver side of the Opel car was completely broken and the deceased as well as other co-passengers were required to be pulled out of the car. Upon appreciating the spot panchnama at exhibit 30, it clearly establishes the fact that the impact of the collusion of ST bus with Opel car was so severe that the door of the driver side of the Opel car was completely broken and the deceased as well as other co-passengers were required to be pulled out of the car. Upon appreciation of such piece of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of both the vehicles were contributory negligent after correctly appreciating the evidence and considering the manner in which the accident has taken place and has rightly come to the conclusion that the contributory negligence of the driver of the ST bus was 80% whereas the driver of the Opel car, i.e., the deceased was 20%. No interference is called for in such finding which is arrived at by the Tribunal based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary. The appeal being meritless, deserves to be rejected and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Record and Proceedings be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. 8. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the present application would not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.