JUDGMENT : (J.C. Doshi, J.) All three captioned appeals preferred by the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited., arises from the selfsame judgment and award, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. First Appeal No.2355 of 2006 challenges the judgment and award passed in MACP No. 1020 of 1996 by the learned MACT, Vadodara on 31/01/2006. First Appeal No.1432 of 2011 challenges judgment and award rendered in MACP No.994 of 1996 on 29/03/2010 and First Appeal No.1433 of 2011 challenges judgment and award rendered in MACP No.1004 of 1996 on 29/03/2010 by the MACT (Aux), Vadodara. All three claim petitions arose from one and same road accident. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Sakil was travelling with Saumitra and Mohammad Ali in a fiat car bearing Registration No GJ-06-K-4441 on National Highway No.8. Opponent no.1, the driver of the luxury bus bearing Registration No.GJ-2-1-3803 was driving the bus rashly and negligently in and excessive high speed and dashed the said fiat car from opposite and smashed all the three occupants in the car resulting in the death of Sakil and Saumitra on the spot and Mohmad Ali on the way to the hospital. The org. claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The org. claimants have joined both the insurance companies of both the vehicles and asked for the compensation from opponent no.3 and stated that even if the driver of the car was also held negligent, he is entitled to claim compensation from both the opponents. 3.1 The opponent no. 1.2.5.6 are served but has not filed their appearance and not remained present before the court. The opponent No.3, the United India Insurance co ltd and opponent No.7 the New India Insurance co ltd has filed their written statements. The opponent no.4, driver has filed his appearance at exh-36, the opponent no-5 has not filed his written statement. The driver of the luxury remained absent during the trial. The learned tribunal after full-fledged trial considering the evidence produced before it held the org. opponent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 4. The driver of the luxury remained absent during the trial. The learned tribunal after full-fledged trial considering the evidence produced before it held the org. opponent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavaty for the appellant – United India Insurance Company, learned Advocate Mr.Sunil Parikh and Mr.Palak Thakkar appearing for New India Assurance Company and learned Advocate Mr.Radhey Vyas appearing for the claimant. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty submits that United India Insurance Company has filed appeal being First Appeal No.2355 of 2006 only on the ground of holding the luxury bus driver, as 100% negligent in causing the road accident. He would submit that tribunal was totally unjustified in attributing 100% negligence to the driver of the luxury bus as it was coming from Vadodara to Surat on correct way and side. He would further submit that even as per the documentary evidence relied upon by the claimant demonstrate that at the time of road accident one fiat car was coming from Village Por to Vadodara dashed to luxury bus going from Vadodara to Surat on right way and side. 5.1 He would further submit that perusing the FIR and Panchnama and the damages received to the luxury bus as well as fiat car, envision that fiat car was coming on the wrong side dashed to the luxury car in head-on collision manner resulting into the death of two persons and one died on way to the hospital whereas the one person sitting in the luxury bus received injuries. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty taking this court through the FIR and Panchnama would further submit that luxury bus received scratches and damages on front side and even on the cleaner side. He would submit that fiat car also received damage on the entire front part of car and got caved which is also established and proved. He would further submit that if the scene of accident is visualized, it indicate that when fiat car coming from Village Por to Vadodara, it was wrong side of fiat car and met with the accident. He would further submit that if the scene of accident is visualized, it indicate that when fiat car coming from Village Por to Vadodara, it was wrong side of fiat car and met with the accident. He also submitted that there is a road-divider which could be envision from the Spot Panchnama and fiat car ran over the road divider after the accident which indicates that fiat car driver was also negligent in causing road accident. 5.3 Exposing the argument further, learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that Village Por is coming on left side of Vadodara–Surat Highway and fiat car was coming from Village Por and therefore to reach to the road from Surat to Vadodara, fiat car has to cross road going from Vadodara to Surat and then to take right turn to put on his correct way. In the present case, scene of accident indicates that fiat car which was coming from the wrong side before reaching to its correct way dashed with the luxury car resulted into accident. He would further submit that if a fiat car has taken some extra care and precaution, the accident could have been avoided. 5.4 Assailing the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, Mr.Nanavaty would submit that tribunal while attributing 100% negligence to the luxury bus driver has not assigned reason but in just and simple worded held that luxury bus driver is 100% negligence in causing the road accident. He would submit that reason is the heart of every finding or the order and since tribunal has not provided reasons, the award in question is bad in law. He would further submit that merely because non-entering into witness box of the driver of luxury bus would not lead to draw adverse inference against him, more particularly, when insurance company is also relied upon the FIR and Panchnama which are relied upon by the claimant to assess the negligence. He would therefore submit that tribunal has committed serious error in drawing 100% negligence of the driver of the luxury bus. 5.5 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavary would further submit that accident took place on national highway coming from Vadodara to Surat and therefore it is not expected from the driver of the luxury bus to drive his vehicle on lower speed. He would therefore submit that tribunal has committed serious error in drawing 100% negligence of the driver of the luxury bus. 5.5 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavary would further submit that accident took place on national highway coming from Vadodara to Surat and therefore it is not expected from the driver of the luxury bus to drive his vehicle on lower speed. The fiat car which is approaching on the road from the nearby side was needed to take due and extra care before entering into the main road and ought to have taken further care when it stops to cross national highway to reach on his way from towards Vadodara but since driver of fiat car did not take sufficient care and adopted casual tendency, fiat car dashed with the luxury bus which decipher that fiat car driver was equally negligent. 5.6 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty would submit that tribunal has wrongly applied the test of assessing issue of negligence of driver of both the vehicles as both the driver of vehicles are equally negligent in causing the road accident and therefore he would submit that tribunal committed error in not assessing the contributory negligence of driver of fiat car in causing accident and this court may correct it by allowing this appeal and driver of the fiat car be held responsible for 50% negligence in causing road accident. Thus, he would submit to allow the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company. 6. Learned Advocate Mr.Sunil Parikh and Mr.Palak Thakkar appearing for New India Assurance Company in two appeals being First Appeal No.1432 and 1433 of 2011 submitted that had the fiat car been on wrong side of the road the damage sustained to the luxury bus would not have been caused. They would submit that principle of “ res ipsa loquitur” applies in the present case. He would further submit that driver of the fiat car died on the spot in the road accident. Now, best evidence to the road accident is the driver of the luxury car. The insurance company did not lead the evidence of driver of luxury car as such prevented the best evidence of the road accident appearing from the sight of the tribunal. Now, best evidence to the road accident is the driver of the luxury car. The insurance company did not lead the evidence of driver of luxury car as such prevented the best evidence of the road accident appearing from the sight of the tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that it is a fit case to draw inference against the driver of the luxury bus to earmark the 100% negligence for causing the road accident. 6.1 Taking through the Panchnama, learned Advocate Mr.Parikh and Mr.Thakkar would submit that if only head-on collision took place between the fiat car and luxury bus as argued by the appellant – company, both the vehicles must have received damage on the front side only. In the present case, luxury bus has received scratches and damages even in the inner side which indicates that bus was flipped while was overtaking the vehicle going ahead of it and then dashed with on coming fiat car. They would further submit that there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of accident, Vadodara–Surat National Highway was having road divider. 6.2 It was further submitted that if the theory of the appellant – company is that the fiat car driven by the deceased driver was coming on wrong side from Village Por to Vadodara then firstly the fiat car could have collided with the truck going ahead of the luxury bus at the relevant time; but no such accident is reported between them and only accident between luxury car and fiat car was reported. Thus, it demonstrated that luxury bus driver could not control the steering and dashed with the fiat car and flipped. It was further submitted that front portion of the fiat car got damaged entirely to that extent that it got caved and resulted into death of two persons; one sitting inside and another during commutation to the hospital. 6.3 It was further submit that according to the FIR and Panchnama, a person from luxury travelling in the luxury bus also died due to this road accident but the appellant has not placed on record any document or award or judgment which could have been passed granting compensation to the heirs of that person to cue the issue of negligence. 6.4 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Parikh and Mr.Thakkar appearing for the insurance company would submit to dismiss the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company by approving the judgment and award of the tribunal. 7. Learned Advocate Mr.Vyas appearing for the claimant/s while adopting the argument of learned advocate Mr.Parikh and Mr.Thakkar would submit to dismiss the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company and confirmed the finding of the tribunal. 8. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is an admitting position that driver of the fiat car died in the road accident. The driver of the luxury car who is the best person and having specialized knowledge of all the relevant facts of road accident in question and is duty bound to explain the accident did not enter into the witness box. In the present case, neither written statement was filed by luxury bus driver to contend that the averments made by the claimants are not true; nor the driver of the luxury bus was examined to deny such averments. In this circumstance, the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” would be attracted. (See 1976 (1) SCC 793 The Krishna Bus Services Ltd., vs. Smt. Mangli & Ors.) 9. What further appears that driver of the luxury bus did not enter into witness box to explain the method and manner in which the accident took place who having specialized knowledge certainly permit the tribunal to draw adverse inference against him. In Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr [ 1999 (3) SCC 457 ], the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as under: “17. Admittedly defendant No.1 had an account in the Central Bank of India Limited, Sambalpur Branch which his father, namely, respondent No.2, was authorised to operate. It is also an admitted fact that it was from this account that the amount was advanced to the appellant by respondent No.2. Admittedly defendant No.1 had an account in the Central Bank of India Limited, Sambalpur Branch which his father, namely, respondent No.2, was authorised to operate. It is also an admitted fact that it was from this account that the amount was advanced to the appellant by respondent No.2. It has been given out in the statement of respondent No.2 that when the appellant had approached him for a loan of Rs.7,000/-, he had explicitly told him that he had no money to lend whereupon the appellant had himself suggested to advance the loan from the account of respondent No.1 and it was on his suggestion that the respondent No.2 issued the cheque to the appellant which the appellant, admittedly, encashed. This fact has not been controverted by the appellant who did not enter the witness box to make a statement on oath denying the statement of defendant (respondent) No.2 that it was at his instance that respondent No.2 had advanced the amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the appellant by issuing a cheque on the account of defendant (respondent) No.1. Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act.” 10. This principle has also been reiterated in Vimla Devi . vs The National Insurance Company Limited [ 2019 SCC 186 ]. “20.6 Fifth, so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they also did not examine any witness to rebut the appellants’ evidence. The Insurance Company could have adduced evidence by examining the driver of the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done.” 11. In backdrop of the above, as the driver of the luxury bus did not enter into the witness box, the sole evidence which could be read and appreciated to assess the negligence is the FIR and Panchnama. 12. FIR (Exh.34) is given by the driver of the luxury bus on 02/01/1996 stating that he was riding the luxury bus on National Highway No.8, at that time truck was going ahead him. He further stated that at that time near Village Por, one fiat car came in wrong side dashed with the luxury bus resulted into the accident. He has further stated that due to accident bus was flipped. He further stated that at that time near Village Por, one fiat car came in wrong side dashed with the luxury bus resulted into the accident. He has further stated that due to accident bus was flipped. Panchnama of the place of accident (Exh.52) was drawn on 08/01/1996 almost after six days states that the accident took place on National Highway i.e. Vadodara to Bombay where pieces of glass were lying and adjacent to road and on west side, there is one feet pakka wall / curbing made with Chuno and Cement and five meters away on southern side some scratch marks were found on the wall. It further states that ten feet footpath was found between two roads. Now, as far as the damage which had caused to the two vehicles are concerned, entire machine part of fiat car caved in; even roof of the fiat car was pressed and metal sheet was cut and turned inside. Both the doors of the driver side was completely broken. The other side of the car also received scratches going upto the rear wheel. It was also caved in and the dickey on the car also got damaged. 150 feet away from the spot on the down track one luxury was lying. Luxury bus has also received severe damage in the front side bumper, head-light, etc. The cleaner side of the bus also received severe scratches, as also the driver side of the luxury bus. Luxury bus received severe scratches to the extent of rear side of the wheel. The sheet of the luxury bus got cut. 13. Thus, to assess the accidental situation, it is the only evidence available on record, the width and extent of damage received by both the vehicles, does not demonstrate that it is mere head-on collision. Had it been the head-on collision accident; both the vehicles may have received damage on the frontal part of the body of vehicle; but in the present case, both the vehicles got damage on both the sides. If the theory of headon collision applies, luxury bus might have received damage on the front side; but there is no possibility of receiving damage on either side of the bus. If the theory of headon collision applies, luxury bus might have received damage on the front side; but there is no possibility of receiving damage on either side of the bus. Situation of luxury bus and fiat car noted in Spot Panchnama unrevealed damages over all on the body and severity cannot be seen as frontal part of fiat car caved in, some metal sheet are cut and bend. Even dickey is damaged viza- viz luxury bus is not only damaged on front side, but both the sides, are equally and severally damaged. The driver of the luxury bus did not enter into the witness box and therefore principle of res ipsa loquitur would apply. In view of that ratio of negligence would be decided keeping in mind the available evidence on record. 14. In Global vs. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others 1962(1) SCR 929 the Apex Court in paragraph 5 has held thus: “5. Apart from the positive evidence, in the present case the accident took place not on the main road, but on the off- side uprooting the stone at the drain and attacking a tamarind tree 25 feet away from the said stone with such a velocity that its bark was peeled off and the bus could stop only after travelling some more distance from the said tree. The said facts give rise to a presumption that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver. Asquith, L. J., in Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co. (1) neatly summarizes the principles applicable as to onus of proof in the following short propositions: "(i) If the defendants' omnibus leaves the road and falls down an embankment, and this without more is proved, then the res ipsa loquitur, there is a presumption that the event is caused by negligence on the part of the defendants, and the plaintiff succeeds unless the defendants can rebut this presumption. (ii) It is no rebuttal for the defendants to show, again without more, that the immediate cause of the omnibus leaving the road is a tyre-burst, since a tyreburst per se is a neutral event consistent, and equally consistent, with negligence or due diligence on the part of the defendants. When a balance has been tilted one way, you cannot redress it by adding an equal weight to each scale. When a balance has been tilted one way, you cannot redress it by adding an equal weight to each scale. The depressed scale will remain down. This is the effect of the decision in Laurie v. Raglan Building Company Ltd., (2), where not a tyre- burst but a skid was involved. (iii) To displace the presumption, the defendants must go further and prove (or it must emerge from the evidence as a whole) either (a) that the burst itself was due to a specific cause which does not connote negligence on their part but points to its (1) [1948] 2 All ER. 46o, 471. (2) [1942] 1 K.B. 152. absence as more probable, or (b) if they can point to no such specific cause, that they used all reasonable care in and about the management of their tyres." The same principles have been restated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 23, at p. 671, para 956, thus: "An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in the first instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already established are such that the proper and natural inference immediately arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the defendant's negligence, or where the event charged as negligence tells its own story' of negligence on the part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous. To these cases the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies. Where the doctrine applies, a presumption of fault is raised against the defendant, which, if he is to succeed in his defence, must be overcome by contrary evidence, the burden on the defendant being to show how the act complained of could reasonably happen without negligence on his part. Where, therefore, there is a duty on the defendant to exercise care, and the circumstances in which the injury complained of happened are such that with the exercise of the requisite care no risk would in the ordinary course of events ensue, the burden is in the first instance on the defendant to disprove his liability. Where, therefore, there is a duty on the defendant to exercise care, and the circumstances in which the injury complained of happened are such that with the exercise of the requisite care no risk would in the ordinary course of events ensue, the burden is in the first instance on the defendant to disprove his liability. In such a case, if the injurious agency itself and the surrounding circumstances are all entirely within the defendant's control, the inference is that the defendant is liable, and this inference is strengthened if the injurious agency is inanimate." The said principles directly apply to the present case. Here, the events happened tell their own story and there is a presumption that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the appellants. But it is ,said that this presumption was rebutted by proof that the accident was due to the rear central bolt of the bus suddenly giving way. The High Court, after considering the relevant evidence, held that it was not possible to hold that the accident was caused by the break in the bolt. We have gone through the evidence and we do not see any flaw in that conclusion. 15. In case of Smt. K. Anusha & Ors. V Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 6237 Of 2021 (Arising Out Of Slp(C) No.14360 Of 2016) , in paragraph 13, it has been held thus: “13. Therefore, the entire reasoning of the High Court on Issue No.1 is riddled with inherent contradictions. To establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. In Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Others2 this Court quoted a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd.3, to hold that “…where, by his negligence, one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty”. In fact, the statement of law in Swadling v. Cooper4, that “…the mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence…”, was also quoted with approval by this Court. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court on the question of contributory negligence.” 16. In view of the above, though it is not established that driver of fiat car was required to take some extra precaution to avoid road accident, it is established that driver of fiat car was nonnegligent. Therefore, the appellant has failed to prove that tribunal committed any error in earmarking the fastening 100% negligence to the driver of the luxury bus. 17. In Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., [(2018) 5 SCC] in paragraph 27 it has been held by the Apex Court that even if the driver of the offending vehicle is acquitted in the criminal matter, has no effect on assessment of liability in motor vehicle accident case. “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the First Appeal filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST4701 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the chargesheet filed by the police, naming respondent No.2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes (supra), noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge sheet against respondent No.2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge sheet against respondent No.2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B Mehta (supra) and Meena Variyal (supra), by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the concerned case. Similarly, even the dictum in the case of Surender Kumar Arora (supra) will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of the respondent No.2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong.” 18. Apart from the issue of not assessing contributory negligence of the driver of the fiat car, no other arguments were raised by learned advocate for the appellant – United India Insurance being germane to the consideration. In nutshell, the insurance company did not quarrel with including the assessment of quantum of compensation. 19. For the reasons recorded herein above, the tribunal has not committed error in believing that luxury car driver was thoroughly negligent in causing the road accident hence the appeals sans merit. 20. In view of the above, the appeals are merit-less and accordingly they are dismissed while confirming the impugned judgments and award. R & P be sent back.