Jayant M. Patel, J.

1. As all these appeals arise from the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, that too, arising from the common accident, they are being considered simultaneously. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 21-11-2000 when deceased Harsukhbhai Sorathia was going as pillion-rider with Mulji Ladhabhai Hadiya, who was driving the scooter bearing registration No. GJW-12-D-9171 and when they reached near Narayan Farm at about 6-00 O'clock, one Fiat car bearing registration No. GUX-9594 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the scooter and also dashed with one Fiat Uno car bearing registration No. GJ-12-E-9936. Resultantly, deceased Harsukhbhai as well as Muljibhai sustained injuries. Later on, Harsukhbhai succumbed to the injuries whereas, Muljibhai, who was driving the scooter, sustained serious injuries. The claim petitions were filed by the dependent members of family of Harsukhbhai being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 786 of 2000 for the compensation of Rs. 1 crore and by injured Muljibhai being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 785 of 2000 for the compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the proceedings, awarded Rs. 45,35,000/- and Rs. 16,42,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum in the respective claim petitions. It is under this circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.

2. We may record that there were two Insurance Companies, one was of the Fiat car, namely the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another was of Fiat Uno car, which is the New India Assurance Company Ltd. So far as The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the insurance company of the Fiat car, is concerned, it has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2636 of 2008 and 2637 of 2008 against quantum of compensation, whereas the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the another insurance company of Fiat Uno car, has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2901 of 2008 and 2902 of 2008 against negligence and quantum of compensation.

3. We have heard Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned Counsel for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned Counsel with Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned Counsel for the original claimants in the respective appeals, Ms. Juthani, learned Counsel with Mr. Meena, learned Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in First Appeal Nos. 2901 of 2008 and 2902 of 2008, the main contesting parties.

4. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants - Insurance Companies that inter se attribution of negligence by the Tribunal is erroneous. The learned Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that there is appropriate attribution of negligence to the driver of Fiat car and the Fiat Uno car by 70% and 30%, whereas, the learned Counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. submitted that the driver of Fiat car should have been made fully negligent and no attribution should have been made to the driver of the Fiat Uno car because of the nature of the accident and on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Fiat car and not the driver of the Fiat Uno car.

4.1. In view of the aforesaid contentions, we may address on the question of attribution of negligence. It may be recorded that the Tribunal has found driver of the scooter not at all negligent and that part of the finding of the Tribunal is not under challenge but the attribution of negligence between the drivers of the Fiat car and the Fiat Uno car is essentially under challenge.

4.2. We have considered the record and proceedings. The evidence on record by way of depositions of the witnesses, F.I.R. and the panchnama show it is true that as per the claimants and even in the F.I.R. the driver of the Fiat car initially dashed with the Fiat Uno car and then dashed with the scooter. But the panchnama of the site of the accident shows slightly different situation. There is damage on the front sid