1 fa 2079.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2079 OF 2010 M.S.R.T.C. Dhule, .. Appellant Versus Sindhubai Madhavrao Shirsath and others .. Respondents Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri A. A. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : . This is an appeal by original respondent No. 4. The present respondent No. 1 had filed a claim petition U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in an accident which took place between the bus owned by the present appellant and the truck. The claimant was traveling in the bus. The Tribunal held that the driver of the bus and the driver of the truck were equally responsible for the accident and held it is a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each. It awarded a modest amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. The claimant 2 fa 2079.10 compromised the matter with the Insurance Company of the truck, however, claim was contested by the present appellant. Upon evaluation of the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the present appellant is liable to pay Rs. 7,500/- to the claimant along with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The tribunal deducted the amount paid under no fault liability. The said order is assailed by the present appellant. 2. Shri Bagul, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the driver of the bus was at all negligent simply because there was collision between two vehicles. The Tribunal presumed that the driver of the bus must be negligent to the extent of 50%. According to the learned counsel there are contradictions in the documentary evidence and the oral evidence which has not been considered. 3. Per contra the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that no fault can be found in the order passed by the Tribunal in as much as the present appellant did not adduce any evidence and as such an adverse inference deserves to be drawn. According to the learned counsel the claimant had proved the injury report, the disablement certificate and the Tribunal has 3 fa 2079.10 awarded just and reasonable amount as compensation. On the contrary the Tribunal has miserly awarded the amount. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and papers which are made available to me by the learned counsel for the claimant. 5. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to head on collision of both the vehicles. The fact that there was a head on collision itself is sufficient to infer negligence on the part of both the parties. Moreover, the appellant has also not adduced any evidence to prove otherwise. The appellant could have examined the driver of the bus to substantiate its case withholding the best evidence would draw adverse inference against the appellant. 6. In the light of above, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality. The evidence has been properly appreciated. As such, the first appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11