JUDGMENT :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate for respondent no.3, Mr. Yogendra M. Thakore, learned advocate for respondent no.5, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for respondent no.7 and Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for respondent no.8– original claimant. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. As the liability is not in question which arises in this appeal, presence of respondent no.1 is not essential for deciding the present appeal. We have called for the record and proceedings and hence, with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 10.5.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh in MACP no.353 of 2016, the appellant-insurance Company of one of the luxury bus bearing registration no. RJ-39 PA- 2298 has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal which gives a vivid picture of the accident which took place at wee hours at 04:00 a.m. on 19.4.2016, wherein three vehicles were affected/damaged. As the record unfolds, the luxury bus bearing registration no. GJ-14 V-5343, which is insured by the respondent no.3–Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and driven by respondent no.1, was coming from Surat side and was proceeding towards Bharuch, whereas, the luxury bus bearing registration no. RJ-39 PA-2298 was being driven from Bharuch side towards Surat. It reveals from the record that the luxury bus bearing registration no. RJ-39 PA-2298 was coming from Surat and was to proceed towards Vadodara side and the luxury bus bearing registration no. GJ-14 V-5343 which was coming from Vadodara side and was to proceed to Surat, took a “U” turn on the right to presumably as per the Panchnama with a purpose to enter Sama Hotel. The luxury bus driven by the driver of the luxury bus insured by the appellant which was coming from Surat and was proceeding towards Vadodara side, dashed with luxury bus bearing registration no. GJ-14 V- 5343 which was taking a “U” turn. The impact of the accident was such that both the luxury buses went on wrong side of each of it and dashed with the Container bearing registration no. GJ-12 Y-6476. The impact of the accident was such that the Container got detached from the trailer and fell in the pit on the other side.

4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, and more particularly the Panchnama Exh.57 and the FIR at Exh.56, came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the luxury busies i.e. luxury bus bearing registration no. RJ-39 PA-2298 and the other luxury bus insured by the respondent no.3 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. bearing registration no. GJ-14 V-5343 held liable and contributed the negligence in the ratio of 40:60, while exonerating the Container and arrived at a finding that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the Container and while partly allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,28,355/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 8% per annum, inter-alia, providing that the same would be recovered from opponents no.1 to 6 i.e. present appellant and respondents no.1 to 5 herein jointly and severally.

5. As the question which arises is only as regards the negligence, the other findings as regards quantum are not necessary to be discussed and dealt with by this Court in this appeal.

6. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance Company has taken this Court through the findings of the Tribunal as regards the manner in which the accident has occurred and the aspect of negligence as discussed by the Tribunal, more particularly in Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Nanavati has also relied upon