6.1. To prove the negligence of the bus driver, the claimant – Vishwanath Handrale examined himself at Exhibit-28A. He has stated that accident occurred due to sole negligence of bus driver. In crossexamination, he has stated that there was no divider on the said road. In cross-examination, he admitted that the road where the accident occurred was busy road. To prove their defense, the appellantCorporation has examined the driver of the ST bus -Rao Saheb Sonawane at Exhibit-44. He has stated that when he was proceeding on road, motorcycle rider was coming in opposite direction in high and excessive speed and to avoid the accident, this witness applied urgent brakes and due to high speed, the rider of the motor-cycle could not control the speed of motorcycle and gave dash to his bus. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was prosecuted for the accident. The appellant- Corporation has examined PW2- Anna Pawar, conductor of the offending bus. He has stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor-cycle. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of the accident, he was sitting at his place. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that from the evidence on record, it shows that there was contributory negligence of driver of both the vehicles. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed 50% contributory negligence on the driver of the offending bus and rider of the motor-cycle. I do not find infirmity in it. In my view, from the spotpanchanama, it appears that the bus-driver had applied the brakes and
