/^i a^n wj ^>s %^f v^ ^•wrv I'RI IR! S.R. NAYAK, CJ EHRiV.K. SHRIVASTAVA, Applicants Smt. Saroj Thakur, Widow of Yogesh Singh Thakur, aged about 23 years, Ku. Damini Thakur, Daughter of Yogesh Singh Thakur, aged abou-t 1 year Both resident of Opp. Sartosh Bhojnataya, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsll & Distt, Bilaspur Present: Dhananjay Kaushlk, S/o Latel Ram Kaus'nik, ageci about 30 yeare, R/o Near Deshi Sharab Dukan, Village Sakari, Tahsi! Takhatpur, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) (Owner CGIO/e-2235) Baj'aj Ai'ianz Genera! Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (Insurance Co. Polioy No. 100000934852) Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. The fo!low'ng oral order of the Court was passed by In this appeal preferred by the iega! representatives 'bf 'the deceased-driver of one of the motor vehicles involved jn the accident The accident had 'taken p'ace on account head 'on collision between two vehjcles. On beha'f of the other vehicle no witness was examined, but, on be.half of the appel.'ants-olaimants a witness was examined; but the said wltness in his evidence deposed that the accident had taken.place due to head on collision of the two vehicles. The jurisdictionai poltee having investigated into the cause of accident have registered the oases against both the drivers contendlng that both the drivers were of guiity of cu'pable negligen.se in driving the vehicles 'nvolved in the accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case. the M.A.C.T. 1 —'x- .-e; dealing wlth the question of negligenoe has he!d that the drivers of both {he vehioles Invoi'ved in the accident had contributed negligence in causing the accident and aocordingly reduced the compensation payable to the appellants by 50%. !t was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the appetlants that the witness examined on behalf of the appellants has deposed that the accident had taken place because of rash anc! negtigent driving on the part of the driver of the other vehicle, and in Shat view of the matter, the M.A.C.T. is not justified in reducing the compensation by 50% hotding that the Yogesh Singh Thakur was also negligent in driving the motor vehicle. It is not that the M.A.C.T. should rest its factual finding on isolated assertion ofthe witness. The MACT has taken into account the totaiity' of the evidence laid before it as a whole. We are satisfied that the factual finding recorded by the MACT is not pen.?erse for want of lega! evidence. On the other hand, the finding recorded by the MACT is one plausible view. No ground is made out for interferenoe. The ^2- appeai is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge l^iwk-