JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent challenging the judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 289 of 2007 by learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, dated 31-07-2015, thereby allowing the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the present respondent and granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 52,10,994/- to the respondent.

2. The facts giving rise to the original petition are that the claimant used to run optical shop, aged 27 years old, earning around Rs. 2,00,000/- per year, sustained permanent physical disability in the accident. He was proceeding in Indica car bearing no. MH-17/Q-1017 by Pune-Nashik road towards Sangamner in the midnight on 10-12-2006. The driver of the Indica car was one Bhausaheb Gore. It is contended that Bhausaheb was driving the said car from left side of the road in moderate speed. When they reached at Warulwadi, Taluka Narayangaon, one S.T. bus bearing no. MH-12/AU-9717 came from opposite side and gave dash to Indica car. As a result of the said dash, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the S.T. bus driver. However, as per the claimant, false complaint was lodged against the car driver under the pressure from S.T. Controller by police against the car driver namely, Bhausaheb Gore. The claimant after sustaining injuries, was taken to Sahyadri Hospital, Pune. He had sustained traumatic brain injury, temporal depressed fractures with mass effect with midline shaft with diffused axonal injury. He has taken treatment as indoor patient from 11-12-2006 to 19-02-2007. He has spent huge amount on his treatment. He has suffered 50 % permanent physical disability. However, that disability has turned out to be total financial loss for him. The claimant has therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from the respondent. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]

3. The respondent filed written statement at Exhibit 14 and denied all adverse pleadings. It is denied that the said accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of bus driver. It is stated that when two vehicles were involved, the owner and Insurance Company of the Indica car were necessary party to the proceedings. The accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of Indica car driver and therefore, Narayangaon police station had prosecuted him. Age, occupation and income of the claimant has been denied; so also, it has been denied that he had sustained permanent physical disability causing entire financial loss to him.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues were framed. Both sides have led oral as well as documentary evidence. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has proved that he sustained permanent disability in the said accident. It was held that both the drivers were negligent and the ratio between them is that 75 % negligence is of S.T. bus driver and 25 % negligence is of the car driver. The respondent has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 52,10,994/- together with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of petition till actual realization of entire amount. This award is under challenge in this appeal.

5. At the outset, it can be said that though the claimant had come with a case that S.T. bus driver was solely negligent for the accident, yet, after the Tribunal had held the car driver negligent to the extent of 25 %; the claimant has not filed any appeal challenging the said finding. Therefore, scope of the appeal is restricted to the challenges those have been made by the original respondent.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made as well as the pleadings, following points arise for determination. Findings and reasons for the same are as follows :-

(