The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident claim and the calculation of just compensation based on the evidence and legal principles.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Amey Kakodkar for the Appellant, Mr. Joaquim Godinho for Respondents No.6 and 7.

2. Respondents No.1 to 5 Original Claimants, though served, are neither present nor represented.

3. Mr. Kakodkar points out that he has been informed that Respondent No.5, the mother of the deceased Satish Shivram Malik, who was 77 years old when the claim petition was instituted in the year 2009 has since expired. The impugned award indicates that 50% of the compensation was awarded to the widow and the balance of 50% was ordered to be distributed between the three minor children of Satish and Sarita, and Respondent No.5 i.e. mother of Satish. At this stage, therefore, it will not be appropriate to adjourn the hearing in this appeal. This appeal was instituted in the year 2012. Suitable orders can always be made to protect the interest of representatives of Respondent No.5 which might include Respondents No.1 to 4 as well.

4. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned Judgment and Award dated 22.07.2011 by which Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that the driver of the bus bearing no. GA-01-T-4087 was responsible for the accident in which Satish Shivram Malik who was traveling in a Tavera jeep bearing no. GA-01-S-9106 died. The Tribunal has determined the compensation at Rs. 24,33,400/- and awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Orders have also been made for apportionment of compensation between the claimants inter se.

5. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has submitted that the evidence on record establishes that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the Tavera jeep and not the driver of the bus that was insured with the Appellant - Insurance Company. He points out that there is no dispute that the accident has taken place on a slope and the bus was climbing up the slope. He pointed out that the version of the claimants' witnesses that the bus was traveling at a speed of 90 kilometers per hour is inherently improbable and, in any case, there is no evidence in support of the same. He pointed out that the evidence on the record as also the sketch accompanying the panchanama, clearly makes out that the driver of the Tavera jeep drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and was solely responsible for the unfortunate accident. He submits that the Tribunal, in this case, has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, but has been influenced by the fact that the owner of the Tavera jeep had defaulted in payment of insurance installments. Mr. Kakodkar, therefore, submits that the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus is quite perverse and warrants interference.

6. Mr. Kakodkar also pointed out that the compensation as determined by the Tribunal, is on the higher side and the same is required to be suitably scaled down. He, therefore, submitted that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside.

7. Mr. Godinho appears for Respondents No.6 and 7 i.e. driver and the owner of Tavera jeep. He points out that the evidence on record points out the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He points out that the driver of the Tavera jeep examined himself, but the bus driver failed to step into the witness box and the Tribunal has quite correctly drawn an adverse inference. He submits that this appeal may be dismissed.

8. On the aspect of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, according to me, there is ample evidence and consequently, there is no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal.

9. In the first place, it is necessary to note that the driver of the bus failed to step into the witness box and depose about his version about the accident. In such circumstance, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the driver, and consequently, rejecting the version which is now sought to be projected.

10. Secondly, in this case, the driver of the Tavera j