( 1 ) THESE petitions and appeals are preferred by the owner of tempo bearing registration No. MEZ 9797 which was involved in the accident, being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 27. 8. 2001, passed in m. V. C. No. 1257 of 1988 and connected cases on the file of the Addl. M. A. C. T. , udupi apportioning the liability between tempo and the bus bearing registration no. CTX 9373 in proportion of 25:75. As the only question involved in these petitions and the appeals is the correctness or otherwise of the apportionment of liability in the above stated ratio, these petitions and the appeals are taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THERE is no appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, nor is there any appeal by the insurance company questioning its liability vis-a-vis the bus involved in the accident which, admittedly, is insured by it. All these petitions and appeals have been filed by the owner of Tempo calling in question the apportionment of liability by the Tribunal on the ground of contributory negligence by the driver of Tempo.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel Mr. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad who appears for the petitioners and the appellants as also Mr. H. G. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for petitioners-appellants very strenuously submitted that the accident took place entirely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus in question and the driver of Tempo had not contributed to the accident in any manner whatsoever. The learned Standing counsel Mr. H. G. Ramesh for respondent nos. 3 and 4, on the other hand, supported the finding of the Tribunal apportioning the negligence to the drivers of the bus and tempo in the ratio of 75:25. It is submitted by him that Tempo was at fault in overtaking the motorcyclist and in coming on to the middle of the road without taking care to notice the oncoming vehicle.

( 5 ) IN the light of the submissions as aforesaid, the following point arises for my consideration: whether the Claims Tribunal was right in apportioning negligence to the drivers of the bus and Tempo in the ratio of 75:25?

( 6 ) BUS and Tempo collided head-on, collision taking place in the middle of the road. The sketch of the scene of the offence was not produced before the Tribunal and it is not clear from the records as to whether the sketch of the scene of offence was at all drawn by the police. 13 persons had died on the spot and among the several injured persons, two persons died during their course of treatment thus bringing the tally of the dead persons alone to 15. The dead included the driver of Tempo. The only eyewitness Sudhakar Amin, who is examined as PW 2 in the M. V. C. No. 461 of 1989, has deposed that the Tempo had just overtaken a motor cycle and in that process had come on to the middle of the road when the bus came from the opposite direction and dashed against Tempo. The resultant impact was such that Tempo was smashed, pushed back by the speeding bus to a considerable distance and ultimately it turned turtle down the road. The spot mahazar drawn up by the police refers to the speed of the vehicles involved in the following terms: (Omitted as in vernacular) the deposition of the eyewitness and the contents of the spot mahazar drawn by the police leave nothing to doubt that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for petitioners-appellants that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus alone and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo whatsoever is not well-founded. There is no doubt in the present case that the accident had occurred because the two drivers who were on a collision course could not manoeuvre their vehicle so as to steer clear off each other. Thereby it follows th