east-west. PW1 was going from east to west, while the car was coming from west to east. The accident occurred 2.7 metres on the north from southern tar end. The road has a width of 4.7 metres. For several reasons, we are not inclined to accept the said finding of the Tribunal. PW1 has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal to the effect that a mini lorry was parked on the southern side of the road. Further, the person who prepared the scene mahazar Et.A3 was not examined to prove the same. PW1 and PW2 claimants have given a consistent version regarding the accident and also about the negligence of car driver. No evidence was adduced by contesting third respondent to show that there was also negligence on the part of PW1. It is clear from the above facts that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the car driver, the first respondent and that there was no negligence on the part of PW1. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of PW1 and hold that accident happened solely due to the negligence of first respondent. It follows that the claimants are entitled to the entire compensation assessed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 52,607/- in O.P.(MV)No.919/2001 and
