TEWATIA, J. ( 1 ) ON 14-11-1969 two vehicles GDA 5709 driven by Sri Mahadev Babshet from Dharwar towards Hubli and MYW 2101 driven by Nagwekar with his wife seated by his side from the opposite direction collided with each other as a result thereof, drivers of both the cars suffered injuries and so also mrs. Nagwekar. All the three claimed compensation regarding the injuries suffered by them. While the drivers claimed from each other as also from the insurers, the wife claimed compensation only from Sri Mahadev Babshet, the owner and the insurer of the car No. GDA 5709. ( 2 ) WHILE from the side of Nagwekar evidence of occurrence consisted of three persons, namely, his wife Indu Nagwekar and PW. 2 Mahantappa besides himself, from the other side the driver of the car GDA 5709 Sri mahadev Babshet alone entered the witness box. Besides this evidence, pw. 3 Ramachandrasa a Photographer was also examined who had at the instance of the police reached the scene of accident and had photographed the offending cars in the position which they came to a halt after the impact. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence so adduced, came to the finding that the respective drivers of the two cars had equally contributed to the accident in question. Having held that the accident had occurred in the manner aforesaid, it decided that the effect of the said finding was that neither claimant was entitled to any compensation. So far as the claim of Mrs. Nagwekar was concerned, that was not even touched. In consequence of the finding that the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence of equal measure of the two drivers, all the three claim applications were dismissed which led to the filing of the present three separate appeals in this Court, one at the instance of Nagwekar, another at the instance of his wife Mrs. Nagwekar and the third at the instance of sri Mahadev Babshet. We propose to decide them by a common order. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for both the drivers have argued with one voice, though for diverse reasons, that the finding of the Tribunal that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident was not justified. Each Counsel has tried to show that it was the other driver that was more to be blamed for the accident. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for both the drivers have argued with one voice, though for diverse reasons, that the finding of the Tribunal that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident was not justified. Each Counsel has tried to show that it was the other driver that was more to be blamed for the accident. ( 5 ) A careful perusal of the evidence on record, more particularly the objective evidence In the form of photographs, leaves no manner of doubt that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident, for the two cam happened to be running in the middle of a very wide road when they collided with each other, and that not only their right sides were equally damaged, but so was the case wilh the drivers who suffered serious injuries. We, therefore, hold that the finding of the Tribunal as regards the blame on the drivers for the accident is concerned is absolutely justified. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, as a result of the finding that both the claimants had contributed to the accident equally, the Tribunal could only mitigate the liability of the drivers to each other to the extent of fifty per cent, and not deny altogether the claim of the offending drivers who happened to be the claimants also. So far as the claim of Mrs. Nagwekar is concerned, she obviously could not be saddled with any blame for the accident and she was entitled to claim full compensation for the injuries suffered by her. However, she having not made her husband and the insurer of that car as parties to her application, she would get only half of the compensation that the Tribunal finds her to be entitled to from the other driver. The tribunal, in the circumstances, is therefore directed to decide the quantum of compensation that each claimant is entitled to and fix the responsibility for the payment thereof. ( 7 ) THE matters are remitted back to the Tribunal to be disposed of in accordance with the above direction. No order as to costs in either of the appeals. --- *** --- .