JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) assailing an award dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. 191/11/09 titled “Rajbir Singh v. Mahender Singh & Ors.”. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,53,988/- to the respondent/claimant against which the owner of the offending vehicle has come up in appeal.

2. The incident occurred at 12:00 PM on 03.10.2008 when the respondent/claimant was going to Village Chand Hut from Palwal, Haryana driving a car bearing registration no. DL-3CY8449 with three other occupants. At this time, the offending bus bearing registration no. UP-81N-9418 (“the offending vehicle”) struck a portion of the car being driven by the respondent, resulting in grievous injuries to all the occupants and resulted in the demise of one Rajpal. It was submitted that the driver fled the scene of the accident after the incident. The respondent/claimant sustained a fracture in the right hand, fracture of the second, third, and fourth ribs of the right side, fracture of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs of the left side along with several other grievous injuries.

3. The MACT framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the accident occurred on 3.10.2008 was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus bearing no.

UP81N9418?

2) To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled to and from whom?

3) Relief.”

4. With respect to the first issue, the MACT was of the prima facie view that in view of the testimonies and documents, injuries were sustained as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. With respect to the second and third issue, the MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 1,53,988/- for elements such as medical treatment, pain and suffering, conveyance and diet, and loss of income. Tabulation of the compensation awarded is provided as under:

5. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Owner, canvassing the following grounds:

a. The respondent acted negligently, and the MACT did not consider contributory negligence involved in a head-on collision in this matter.

b. The MACT has granted excess compensation to the Respondent.

Negligence

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the MACT erred in holding the bus driver guilty of causing the accident. He states that the respondent/claimant was on the wrong side of the road and driving the car under the influence of liquor. Further, since this collision was head-on, both drivers must be attributed contributory negligence. Counsel further contends that no reasoning on the issue of negligence had been provided by the MACT. He relies upon Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta (2006) 3 SCC 242 wherein it was held:

“12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High Court has not dealt with the point in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of MACT recorded under Issue 2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta PW 2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head-on collision. MACT has not accepted the evidence of PW 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle a