1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR F.A.NO.1384 of 2009. Raju Krushnarao Mutkure ..vs.. Mohd.Shakil Ahmed s/o Mohd.Ilyas and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.Raisuddin Adv. for the appellant. Mrs.S.P.Deshpande Adv. for resp.no.2. C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 23rd March, 2010. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 2, This appeal is preferred by the original claimant. The claim petition was filed by the claimant on the ground that he suffered injuries in the accident. It is alleged that the appellant was driving motor-cycle while respondent no.1 was driving an auto-rickshaw, which is called a Minidor. There was a head-on collision between two. Claimant suffered injuries. The learned Judge of the Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.1,06,500/- but deducted 25% of the amount from the same holding 2 that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 25%. This is the only finding which is under challenge. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that total fault was that of Minidor and there was no reason for the learned Judge to have held that 25% of the negligence was that of the claimant. 3. After having gone through the judgment of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the accident had taken place on the road. It is a high-way. There was a head-on collision. In the circumstances, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has rightly drawn the conclusion that there was a fault on the part of the motor-cycle driver also. It is difficult to assume that claimant could not see the Minidor coming from the opposite direction. If there was a head-on collision, it must be assumed that both the drivers were negligent in driving. The negligence has been properly apportioned by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. I do not see any reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute 3