The deceased's failure to maintain a safe distance from the bus and the bus driver's sudden stop without a signal both contributed to the accident, establishing contributory negligence.

( 1 ) THE claimants in a death case, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award whereby their claim for compensation has been rejected, have preferred this appeal under Secrion 173 (1) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short, 'the act' ). The additional motor accidents claims tribunal, chikodi (for short, 'm. a. c. t. '), by the impugned judgment and award, has held that no actionable negligence can be attributed to the driver of the bus involved in the accident. Quite curiously, the m. a. c. t. did not award compensation even under the head 'no fault liability'.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the m. a. c. t. the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the finding recorded on issue Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to actionable negligence attributed to the driver of the bus is perverse and suffers from vice of non-consideration of evidence on record in a right perspective. According to learned counsel, the evidence adduced by claimants to prove actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus remains unrebutted. The only contention of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that the finding recorded by the m. a. c. t. on actionable negligence is based on evidence and, therefore, the appeal does not deserve our acceptance.

( 3 ) THE case of the claimants-appellants, in brief, is as follows: on 16. 11. 1991, deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. Crb 298 on chikodi-ichalakaranji road. At that time, a k. s. r. t. c. bus bearing registration No. Cap 3548 was going ahead of the motor cycle driven by its driver in a high speed. The bus was suddenly stopped without giving any signal and as a consequence, the deceased could not control his vehicle and dashed against the bus from behind and due to the impact the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. The claimants attributing actionable negligence to the driver of the bus and contending that the deceased was earning an annual income of Rs. 10,000 from agriculture and a sum of Rs. 23,000 from grocery business, claimed total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000.

( 4 ) THE claim petition was opposed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by filing statement of objections. The respondent No. 1 who is the driver of the bus involved in the accident, though served with notice, did not contest the case by filing written statement. In the objections statement of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, except involvement of the vehicle in the accident, all other material allegations contained in the claim petition are denied. On the other hand, it was contended by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle himself. In the premise of the facts so pleaded in the pleadings of the parties, m. a. c. t. framed the following issues:" (1) do the petitioners prove that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1? (2) do the respondents prove that the accident happened due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased yallappa? (3) whether petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were dependants of deceased yallappa and whether they are entitled to any share in the amount of compensation, if any, payable by the respondents? (4) whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation over and above interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 already awarded? If so, how much?"

( 5 ) IN support of the claim, claimant No. 2 examined himself as pw 1 and examined another by name shekar harigouda patil as pw 2 and marked 14 documents as exhs. P-1 to p-14. On behalf of the respondents none was examined nor was any document got marked.

( 6 ) THE m. a. c. t. having appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No. 1 in the negative and issue No. 2 in the positive. Consequently, the m. a. c. t. did not find it necessary to de