( 1 ) BY means of this First Appeal the owner of the offending vehicle has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Sabarkantha at Himatnagar on 13/05/1982 in M. A. C. Petition No. 360 of 1981.

( 2 ) THE facts giving to the present Appeal may be summarised thus : respondent No. 1 herein in the company of his cousin had been to village bavasar on 19/03/1981. They wanted to go to village Nana Chakla therefrom. They thereupon boarded one S. T. Bus plying between Himatnagar and Punsari. It bore R. T. O. Registration No. GTH 5319. Respondent No. 2 herein was at the steering at the relevant time. In the course of its journey at about 7-30 p. m. in the sim of village Modhuka, Taluka Prantij it met with an accident with one bullock cart coming from the opposite direction. The bullock cart carried in it some corrugated iron sheets. Respondent No. 1 herein was occupying the right side window seat at the relevant time. As a result of the accident, the corrugated sheets in the bullock cart came on his right hand crushing his ring finger and last finger and also causing injuries in his palm. The driver of the S. T. Bus did not bring it to a halt even on occurrence of this accident. Instead he carried his bus ahead. He however reported the accident to the Talod Police Station. The report was entered only in the Register known as "janva jog Yadi". No investigation into the cause of accident was made nor any panchnama was drawn. Respondent No. 1 herein was carried to Civil Hospital at Himatnagar. He was given treatment thereat. He thereafter filed his claim petition in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Sabarkantha at Himatnagar claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 from the driver and the owner of the bus in question. It came to be registered as M. A. C. Petition No. 360 of 1981. The claim was however reduced to Rs. 25,000. 00 later on. The appellant herein filed its written statement and resisted the claim petition on several grounds. Respondent No. 2 herein adopted that written statement by filing his purshis. Since the claim was to the tune of Rs. 25,000. 00, it was ordered to be decided on Affidavit, Apropos, the necessary affidavits were filed by the parties. The parties also brought on record certain documentary evidence. The necessary issues were also framed. After hearing the parties, by its judgment and order passed on 13/05/1982, in M. A. C. Petition No. 360 of 1981, the Tribunal awarded to respondent No. 1 herein the damages in the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00. The owner of the bus in question has thereupon preferred this appeal before this Court challenging the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal as aforesaid.

( 3 ) SHRI Pandya for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the bus in question to be rash and negligent at the relevant time. According to Shri Pandya for the appellant, respondent No. 1 herein was also negligent in allowing his right hand to remain out of the window in a dangling condition, apart from the fact that the bullock cart driver was equally negligent for causing the accident in question. Shri Pandya for the appellant has also questioned the correctness of the assessment of damages made by the tribunal. As against this, Shri Nanavati for respondent No. 1 has tried to support the judgment and order of the Tribunal under challenge in toto.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal has found the driver of the bus also negligent in driving his vehicle at the relevant time. The bullock cart driver was also found negligent. The Tribunal has apportioned the negligence equally between the two drivers. The evidence on record does not call for any interference in this finding of the Tribunal so far as the driver of the bus in question is concerned. The Tribunal has found that the road on which the accident took place was a kachcha one. Its width was found to be about 15 to 16 ft. It was about 7. 30 p. m