JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 30.11.2010 in MACP Nos. 231, 232 and 233 of 2003, the present appeals are filed by the insurance company of the luxury bus involved in the accident under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeals - 2.1 That the accident took place on 12.12.2002 between luxury bus bearing registration no. DD-02-9018 and Maruti Zen bearing registration no. GJ-5-AC-9377. It is the case of the claimants that the accident took place at 9.30 on the said date on Ahmedabad-Dhandhuka Highway near Bhimnath village. It is further the say of the original claimants that the Maruti car was proceeding from Bhavnagar whereas the luxury bus was coming from the opposite direction and both the vehicles collided head-on. The original claimants filed claim petitions being MACP nos. 231/03, 232/03 and 233/03 under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation as under - MACP No. 231 of 2003 - Rs.1,63,00,000/- MACP No. 232 of 2003 - Rs.29,10,000/- MACP No. 233 of 2003 - Rs.7,24,000/- 2.2. The original claimants relied upon oral deposition of Vijyaben Ashokbhai Jagani at Exhibit 50, Vinubhai Madhubhai Jagani at exhibit 41 and Sanjaykumar Vinodray Jagani at exhibit 35. Even the driver of luxury bus Shri Himmatbhai Jamalbhai was examined at exhibit 80. The Tribunal also relied upon documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 53, panchnama at exhibit 54, PM Report, documents such as Memorandum and Articles of Association, income tax returns, computation of income, balance sheets, LIC receipts, at mark 44/1 to 44/29 and 52/1 to 52/18, ambulance receipt at exhibit 70, medicolegal certificate at exhibit 71, discharge summary at exhibit 72, report of radiology department at exhibit 73, disability certificate at exhibit 46, form 2D for income tax at exhibit 74 to 76, permanent disability certificate at exhibit 78, school leaving certificate of the deceased at exhibit 56, school leaving certificate of Pinankumar at exhibit 57, form no.2D saral at exhibit 58 to 60, marksheet of pinankumr at exhibits 61 to 65, passport at exhibit 66. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the panchnama at exhibit 54, came to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent for the accident and partly allowed all the claim petitions and awarded compensation as under- MACP No. 231/03 Dependency benefit Rs.39,40,500/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Consortium Rs.10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- Rs.39,68,500/- MACP No. 232/03 Future economic loss Rs.3,70,400/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Medicines and medical treatment Rs.50,000/- Sp.diet, attendant crg, conveyance Rs.20,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.30,000/- Rs.5,70,400/- MACP No. 233/03 Dependency benefit Rs.6,96,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Consortium Rs.10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- Rs.7,24,000/- Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed. 3. As the appeals relate to the same accident and same set of evidence is adduced, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellants in all the appeals, Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the original claimants and Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the other insurance company, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in First Appeals No. 952 and 953 of 2011. 5. Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that though the contents and grounds as regards quantum are raised in the memo of the appeal, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , such contentions on quantum are not pressed. Mr. Nanavati however submitted that considering the panchnama at exhibit 54 and the oral deposition of the driver Himmatbhai Jamalbhai at exhibit 80, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent. Mr. Nanavati contended that luxury bus cannot go on the wrong side of the road because one truck was going ahead of the luxury bus and another truck was coming from the opposite direction. Mr. Nanavati contended that luxury bus cannot go on the wrong side of the road because one truck was going ahead of the luxury bus and another truck was coming from the opposite direction. According to the driver of the luxury bus, the accident has taken place after both the trucks passed each other and no one has challenged this aspect of the matter. Mr. Nanavati contended that the eye witness has stated that after the accident, the Maruti car had gone under the luxury bus and it is an admitted fact that there are three persons in Maruti car and in order to save them, the Maruti car is pulled out from beneath the luxury bus and one of them survived. It was contended by Mr. Nanavati that the complainant has therefore correctly stated that the Maruti car was placed and he has not used the word 'lying'. Mr. Nanavti further contended that the Maruti car dashed on the front of the bumper of the luxury bus from the driver side and the said fact corroborates with the panchnama where it is clearly mentioned that the front driver side headlight is broken and the mudguard on the front wheel is pressed inside and the front wheel is detached from the bars. It was therefore contended by Mr. Nanavati that the car was being driven at a higher speed. According to Mr. Nanavati, the driver of the Maruti Zen car was equally negligent for the accident. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Nanavati contended that judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified by allowing the appeals. 6. Per contra, Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the original claimants has opposed these appeals. According to Mr. Darji, the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly come to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent. 7. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing for the other insurance company has also supported the impugned award. 8. No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions have been raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. As the contention as regards quantum is not pressed, the only question raised in these appeals is whether the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was negligent or not? 10. 8. No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions have been raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. As the contention as regards quantum is not pressed, the only question raised in these appeals is whether the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was negligent or not? 10. In order to examine the aforesaid aspect, it would be appropriate to refer to the deposition of the driver Himmatbhai Jamalbhai at exhibit 80 and specially the cross-examination. He has admitted the fact in his cross-examination that he could not control the bus and it was dragged for about 20 ft. In addition to that, even in his deposition, it has come on record that the truck was going just ahead of the luxury bus and the damage caused to the luxury bus as well as the Maruti Zen car is such that unless and until both the vehicles have come in front of each other, such accident cannot take place. Moreover, as noted hereinabove, the fact that the luxury bus could not be controlled as admitted by the driver himself in his deposition and got dragged about 20ft., establishes the fact that even luxury bus was being driven at an excessive speed. In the version of the driver at exhibit 80 that the bus was being driven at a speed of 30-40 km per hr. is just unbelievable. In addition to that, considering the panchnama of the occurrence as well as the deposition of the witness at exhibit 41 and 80, even though the truck was going ahead of luxury bus, the accident has occurred. It has also come in deposition of the driver of the luxury bus himself that the accident occurred after the truck coming from the other side passed through the luxury bus. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, therefore we have a reason to believe that the driver of luxury bus with a speed, made an attempt to overtake the truck going just ahead of it and dashed with the Maruti car that too with a speed wherein even as per his version, the driver could not control the bus and it got dragged to 20ft and Maruti Zen went beneath it. The luxury bus was a sleeper coach and a heavy vehicle and considering the fact that the accident has occurred at night hours and as rightly noted by the Tribunal, there is an admission on the part of the driver of the luxury bus that he could not control the luxury bus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent cannot be faulted. The contention on negligence raised by Mr. Nanavati therefore deserves to be negatived. Even upon re-apprecaition of the evidence, including the oral deposition for the driver, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent. The question therefore which arises in this appeal is answered accordingly. 11. Resultantly, all the three appears fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.