JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 30.5.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi) & 14th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara at Savli, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1688 of 2015 (Old MACP No. 710 of 2013), whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.2,02,200/- towards compensation to the original claimant (husband of the deceased), the Gujarat Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) has filed present appeal. 2. Present appeal is filed by the Corporation on the ground of 100% negligency fasten on part of the original opponent No.2. 3. The brief facts giving rise to present appeal read as under:- 3.1 On 29.04.2013, between 08:00 and 08:30 A.M., the claimant and his wife i.e., deceased Sarojben Takhatsinh Sodhapar were going from Dakor to Thasra on Motorcycle No. GJ-6FN-6712. Deceased Sarojben was a pillion rider and the claimant Takhatsinh Himmatsinh Sodhaparmar was driving the said vehicle in a moderate speed and on the proper side of the road. 3.2 As soon as they reached on Dakor-Godhra road and passing Pushpanjali, the original opponent no. 1, S.T. Bus driver, having registration number GJ-18-Y-7264, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Motorcycle from its back side. 3.3 In this accident deceased has sustained brutal injuries and succumbed to death while the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. 3.4 Therefore, the husband of the deceased has filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1688 of 2015 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi) & 14th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara at Savli. 3.5 The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed impugned judgment and award dated 30.5.2018 granting compensation of Rs.2,02,200/- in favour of the husband of the deceased (original claimant). 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the accident has occurred due to negligency of the driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the 50% contributory negligency be held on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the person who is not eyewitness of the accident, therefore, the version of the FIR is not to be true. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the 50% contributory negligency be held on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the person who is not eyewitness of the accident, therefore, the version of the FIR is not to be true. Considering all these facts he submitted that the impugned judgment and award may be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim learned Counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence place on record and after taking into account all the relevant aspects, passed impugned judgment and award and that therefore, present appeal may not be interfered with. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision dated 21.12.2021 passed by this Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Fajana Wd/o Yusuf Daud Ibrahim in First Appeal No. 4121 of 2009. 7.1 So far as the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant about the contributory of negligency, learned advocate for the respondent – claimant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora reported in (2001) 3 GLR 2528 . In the case of Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora (supra), this Court has observed in Para-12 as under: “(12) Therefore, the first question which is required to be seriously examined is with regard to the cause of accident, accountability and the issue of rashness and negligence pleaded by the claimants and challenged by the appellant. Undoubtedly, the issue of negligence is an important and integral part of branch of Law of Tort. The burden of proving the negligence is on the party, like that, the claimant or the plaintiff who asserts it. Such a party, therefore, ought to prove the causation. It is not for the wrong-doer to excuse himself by proving that accident was inevitable and due to no negligence of his part. It is, therefore, the person who suffers the harm or injury to prove affirmatively that it was due to the negligence of the tort-feasor or the other side or the defendant, as the case may be. It is not for the wrong-doer to excuse himself by proving that accident was inevitable and due to no negligence of his part. It is, therefore, the person who suffers the harm or injury to prove affirmatively that it was due to the negligence of the tort-feasor or the other side or the defendant, as the case may be. Such a person has to produce reasonable evidence that the accident was the outcome of the negligence of the other side or in a case of road accident, the driver of the vehicle. If primary facts are, successfully, constituted by the evidence of the person wronged or by the person who has become the victim of tort, it is for the alleged tort-feasor or the other side to explain the circumstances, under which the questioned accident occurred. It is not necessary for the plaintiff or the claimant to show that the defendant or the tort-feasor should be, fully, guilty of negligence. The negligence could be established even on the touchstone and yardstick of preponderance of probability. In a case of civil liability, the onus of proof of prima facie showing an element of negligence on the part of the tort-feasor or the other side will shift the onus on the other side to explain the circumstances which led to the tortious act or the road accident. At times, direct evidence is seldom obtainable to substantiate the proposition of the plea of negligence for variety of reasons. It is in this context, to mitigate the hardship of doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" has been evolved in the law of tort, which, in other words would mean, things speak themselves. It is, in this context, in common law of tort, this doctrine has been recognised and very well followed.” 7.2 He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Aaminaben Karim and others reported in 2001 (2) GLR 1108 . In the case of Aaminaben Karim (supra), this Court has also observed in Para 8 as under: “8. Plain reading of the opening words “no sum” under the provision has to be strictly interpreted. If this is the intention of the legislature that no sum is payable, then, it is difficult to understand the logic that the compensation is payable by the Insurance Company but not interest. Plain reading of the opening words “no sum” under the provision has to be strictly interpreted. If this is the intention of the legislature that no sum is payable, then, it is difficult to understand the logic that the compensation is payable by the Insurance Company but not interest. What is the intention of the legislature in enacting this provision is that if the notice is not given to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has a right to approach the Tribunal for impleadment and after the Insurance Company is impleaded, it can defend the action on the grounds enumerated under this subsection. Learned single Judge has not taken care of the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Act, and therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest is not payable by the Insurance Company for the period the Insurance Company was not impleaded.” 7.3 Learned advocate for the respondents has further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 . In the case of Syed Sadiq (supra), the Supreme Court has also observed in Para-29 as under: “29. On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the appellants/claimants herein should have taken utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants/claimants were moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge sheeted under sections 279 and 338 of IPC, but given the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/ claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution of the appellants/claimants in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside.” 8. I have heard Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation and Mr. Mohsin Hakim, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant. I have also perused the material available on record of the appeal as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. The corporation has filed this appeal only on the ground of negligency and not on the ground of quantum and other aspects. It further appears from the record that the learned Tribunal has observed that the accident took place in day light and except driver of both the offending vehicles, no other vehicle, on the road was noticed. Further, even the F.I.R. was also lodged against the driver of the S.T. Corporation and the panchnama also reveals that the negligency, prima facie, was proved beyond reasonable doubt before the learned Tribunal. 10. Considering the discussion by the learned Tribunal in paragraph No. 9.2 more particularly issue No. 1, I am of the opinion that without examination of the driver of offending S.T. corporation, the S.T. corporation cannot raise issue with regard to the negligency, more particularly in light of the judgment of this Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra). 11. Without examining the driver of the offending bus, the issue of negligency cannot be decided. Otherwise, all the evidence are against the S.T. corporation, the driver was chargesheeted by the competent police under whose jurisdiction the accident occurred. Therefore, considering the all these aspects present appeal is meritless and no interference is called for. 12. Present appeal filed by the S.T. Corporation is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Otherwise, all the evidence are against the S.T. corporation, the driver was chargesheeted by the competent police under whose jurisdiction the accident occurred. Therefore, considering the all these aspects present appeal is meritless and no interference is called for. 12. Present appeal filed by the S.T. Corporation is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. The amount which is awarded by the learned Tribunal if it is kept in this Court, the same be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith and if it is lying with the learned Tribunal by way of FDR, the same be disbursed in favour of the original claimant (husband of the deceased) – respondent No. 1 herein, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, after verifying the bank details of the original claimant through R.T.G.S. only. 14. As the original claimant has not preferred any appeal or cross objection therefore, no further discussion about the quantum and the merits of the matter is discussed herein. Impugned judgment and award dated 30.5.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi) & 14th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara at Savli, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1688 of 2015 (Old MACP No. 710 of 2013) is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings if lying in this Court, the same be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.