( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th March 1982 passed, by the then learned Chairman of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claim Application no. 25 of 1981, dismissing the application with costs.

( 2 ) ). In short, it is the case of the appellant (Orig. petitioner) that on 29th september 1980 riding over the Scooter No. GRA 104, he and Ramanbhai Narandas were going towards Maninagar via Kankaria in Ahmedabad. The petitioner was driving the scooter while Ramanbhai was the pillion-rider. As alleged, the appellant was driving the scooter cautiously remaining on the left side of the road keeping in mind the rules of traffic. He reached near Kankaria-Balvatika, at 4-30 p. m. One truck bearing No. GTD 4949, at that time came from behind. Near Balvatika he found muddy water flowing from one side to another and so there was also a thin layer of wet mud on the road. He, therefore, slowed down the speed, took the scooter on the extreme left side of the road and stopped there. He continued to sit on the parked scooter. The truck which was coming from behind hit them from behind as a result, both were knocked down injured. The appellant was seriously injured. The truck driver was driving the truck at the hectic speed endangering the human life. Soon after the incident, the appellant and Ramanbhai, were removed to the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital. On receipt of the message from the truck-driver, the police went to the Hospital. The complaint against the truck-driver was filed. The appellant had to undergo servere pains. He sustained heavy financial loss. In order to make the loss good, he filed the claim petition for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal at Ahmedabad and claimed Rs. 6,00,000. 00. Initially, the truck driver was joined as a party but later on he was deleted. At the conclusion of the hearing appreciating the evidence before him, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal reached the conclusion that negligence on the part of the truck driver was not established and on that count the petition was liable to be dismissed. He accordingly dismissed the petition. It is against that judgment, the present appeal has been preferred.

( 3 ) ). On behalf of the appellant, Mr. K. G. Sheth, the learned Advocate pressed the appeal upon one ground. According to him, the evidence on record was cogent and sufficient to hold that the truck driver was negligent in driving the truck; and because of his negligence the incident happened and appellant sustained injuries, but the Tribunal fell into error in appreciating the evidence. In the alternative, he submitted that negligence was the ancillary factor and ought not to have been given much weight in such cases.

( 4 ) ). In order to help the victims of the motor accidents, the tortious act, necessary provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act have been made so that they can get fair compensation and make the loss good; but the compensation is not to be awarded mechanically or as a matter of course on the happening of the incident. The party, praying for compensation filing petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (Sec. 110-A of M. V. Act, 1939) dealing with fault liability, has not only to allege the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle/s; or the other agency responsible in law to provide motorable facilities or facilities for the traffic, and safety devices but has also to establish the same leading necessary evidence, failing which he cannot succeed. In order to establish negligence, the party has to show what was the duty of the driver, the driver committed the breach of that duty, and the result of the breach of that duty, was injury to his person and/or property. But let us make it clear that if the compensation is claimed under the principle no fault liability under Sec. 140 (Sec. 92-A of M. V. Act, 1939) or on the basis of structur