* 1 * F.A.546.2011 15.4.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2011 IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM PETITION NO. 43 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3415 OF 2010 [FOR STAY] IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1549 OF 2011 [FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE AMOUNT] IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant V/S. Smt. Darshana Ganesh Kanavaje & Ors. ...Respondents * * * * * Mr. P.G. Lad, adv.for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh S. Patil, adv.for respondents no.1 to 6. CORAM :­ Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 15th April, 2011. P.C. :­ 1. The MSRTC has filed this appeal to challenge judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ratnagiri directing it to pay * 2 * F.A.546.2011 15.4.2011 compensation of Rs.8,80,000/­ with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The appellant has filed compilation of the pleadings, the depositions and the documents produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, production of records and proceedings is dispensed with. 2. The only ground of challenge in the appeal is to the absolute liability for the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal has held that the driver of the bus of the appellant was fully responsible for the occurrence of the accident. The appellant contends that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent and hence equally responsible for the accident. The appellant does not dispute the occurrence of the accident. The involvement of its bus in the accident and death of the husband of respondent no.1. It also does not dispute the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents. 3. Mr. Lad, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that, the findings of the Tribunal on negligence are not consisted. It has at one place held that both the drivers are responsible for the accident, but, at another place has held the driver of the bus alone responsible for the accident. The statement at paragraph­10 of the order pointed out by Mr. Lad is nothing but statement of the claim made by the appellant. It is not a finding given by the Court. The Tribunal has raised specific issue * 3 * F.A.546.2011 15.4.2011 as regards the negligence which is Issue no.2. While answering the issue, it has held that the accident had taken place because of the sole negligence of the driver of the S.T. Bus. The reasons for this finding are at paragraph­8 of the judgment. The Court has found that the spot of the accident was 3 and feet from the central line on the east side. Taking ½ into consideration, the direction of travel of the two vehicles, east side was the correct side for the car and wrong side for the S.T. Bus. The very fact that the S.T. Bus had gone into the wrong side of the road was sufficient to hold that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. There is nothing either in the written statement or in the evidence led by the parties to show that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Therefore, there is no substance in the challenge to the appeal. No question, either of law or fact, arises for consideration of this Court in the appeal. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.1549 of 2011 filed by the respondents for withdrawal of the amount and Civil Application No. 3415 of 2010 for stay do not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [JUDGE]