3) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that it is a case of head on collision between two vehicles and that therefore, the lower Tribunal should have apportioned liability at 50% each dividing negligence on the part of each driver. The appellant’s counsel placed reliance on Bijoy Kumar Dugar V. Bidyadhar Dutt a[1] in support of his contention. In that matter, persons relating to both the vehicles were impleaded in the claim petition and evidence was let in by all the parties and on facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence by both the drivers and apportioned the compensation at 25% and 75%. Ultimately when the matter came up before the Supreme Court, it was held that compensation has to be apportioned at 50% each in case of head on collision and that since it was not a case of head on collision, but one vehicle had dashed the other vehicle by its side killing driver of the car, the Tribunal had rightly apportioned the compensation. Thus, apportionment of negligence resulting in apportionment of compensation depends on facts and circumstances of the case established by evidence let in by both the parties before the lower Tribunal.
