1 fa1424 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1424 OF 2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant vs. Maya Premshankar Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Mehta i/b MR.KMC Legal Venture for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the insurer of one of the two auto rickshaws involved in the accident. 2 The first respondent claimant along with her infant son aged 3 months was proceeding to Vashi by the auto rickshaw insured with the appellant. The first respondent was taking her infant son to a doctor. The auto rickshaw insured with the appellant gave a dash to other auto rickshaw owned by the opponent no.2 to the claim petition. The first respondent sustained injuries and unfortunately the infant succumbed to the injuries. The present appeal arises out the claim petition filed by the first respondent claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by her. Compensation of Rs.18,900/- with interest has been granted. 2 fa1424 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability of the appellant was not established as the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw insured with the appellant was not established. He submitted that the liability has not been apportioned. There is no dispute that both the auto rickshaws were involved in the accident. No effort has been made to examine the driver of the auto rickshaw insured with the appellant. The Trial Court has relied upon the police papers which prove involvement of both the vehicles. The case is that the auto rickshaw insured with the appellant gave a dash to the other auto rickshaw. Therefore, there is no reason to find a fault with the finding of the Tribunal that the drivers of both the auto rickshaws were negligent. 4 As far as apportionment of compensation is concerned, the settled law is that, apportionment is not mandatory. Considering the injuries sustained, compensation awarded of Rs.18,900/- is reasonable. No case is made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 Civil application no.2726 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 6 The appellant will be entitled to refund of the amount deposited in this court under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. JUDGE