Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, the specific allegation against the KSRTC., is that the driver, who came from Channapatna side suddenly took the vehicle towards Kestur side without giving any signal. When such allegation is made while taking the turn also he has to give a signal. Apart from that, the vehicle, which came in the opposite direction from Mysuru side i.e., the driver of the canter dashed against the bus, the bus was taken to the right side towards Kestur. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that the charge-sheet was not filed against the KSRTC., and the specific allegation is also made against both but 50% taken by the Tribunal is erroneous and the Tribunal also not discussed anything with regard to taking of 50% contributory negligence in respect of both the vehicles. Hence, it is appropriate to apportion the contributory negligence to the extent of 30% in respect of the KSRTC., and 70% against the driver of the Canter, who came and hit the KSRTC., bus and thereafter dashed against the claimant as well as the claimant vehicle. Hence, I answer point No.(i) as ‘partly affirmative’.
