JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - These two appeals have been filed by the father and the son injured in the same accident u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'). The claims were disposed of in one judgment. Therefore, these two appeals are also heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The accident and the injuries sustained by the father and the son are not in dispute. Mr. M.M. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants, assailed the justices of quantum of the compensation determined as well as the apportionment of the liability and compensation awarded. 3. On 28-10-1974 as about 1 p.m., the father and the son were going to their residence from the shop in a new unregistered motor-cycle driven by the son. After a short distance of about 11/2 K. Ms from their shop at the station area of New Capital they met with the accident. A truck was coming from Vani Vahar towards the station crossing. Behind it a fiat car was proceeding making attempt to overtake the truck since a long distance and with the usual feeling of the truck drivers to be the masters of the road, the driver of the truck was not giving way to the car. Finding some space to overtake the truck the fiat car had just reached near the engine of the truck when the motor-cycle coming from the opposite direction had a head on collision with the car on the bonnet. This is the picture which one gets from reaching the entire evidence on the record. 4. The tribunal has found that the driver of the motor-cycle (son), the driver of the truck and the driver of the fiat car, each had their own contributions for the unfortunate accident. He fixed the responsibility equally. However, the owner of the truck escaped the liability of paying any compensation and the claimants having been directed to bear one-third of the liability, one-third of the liability of the owner of the fiat car was directed to be paid by its insurer. The owner of the car and the insurer being satisfied with the one-third of the liability fixed, have not challenged the award. In absence of direction of the tribunal to the owner of the truck or its insurer to pay the balance one-third contribution, they have not preferred any appeal. The owner of the car and the insurer being satisfied with the one-third of the liability fixed, have not challenged the award. In absence of direction of the tribunal to the owner of the truck or its insurer to pay the balance one-third contribution, they have not preferred any appeal. Beth the injured have only preferred the present-appeals. 5. Mr. Sahu, submitted that there is absolutely no negligence in driving the motor-cycle and the entire accident is on account of negligent driving of the driver of the fiat car. He submitted that even assuming that the driver of the truck was responsible for the accident the entire liability ought to have been apportioned between the two vehicles and the driver of the motor-cycle should not have been held to have contributed to the accident. 6. After careful consideration of the materials on record, the tribunal has rightly held all the three drivers to be equally responsible. Independently considering the materials also, I am satisfied that the same would be the conclusion. PW 2, the injured father, who was the pillion rider stated that since a long distance the driver of the fiat car was endeavoring to overtake the truck and yet the truck driver was adamant to be the controller of the road. The road was wide and had more than two feet earthen space on the left. The driver of the motor-cycle had also the responsibility of taking sufficient care to be on the guard to have control over the vehicle when it found the driver of the fiat car overtaking. The fiat car had almost overtaken the entire length of the truck to the extent of the front wheel of the truck. When the situation was not sudden but was such to be anticipated by any driver* the driver of the motor-cycle ought to have taken his motor-cycle to the further left or even could have stopped it where it was. I have the feeling that the arrogance of the driver of the truck, the haste of the driver of the fiat car and the carefree driving of a new motor-cycle by a Youngman caused the accident. I have the feeling that the arrogance of the driver of the truck, the haste of the driver of the fiat car and the carefree driving of a new motor-cycle by a Youngman caused the accident. It is an everyday experience in life now that the drivers of the two-wheeled vehicles with propelling machines fixed have the greatest desire to exhibit their skills on the main roads leaving the open fields for being used by other sportsmen, their skill to show the strength of the vehicle to carry more than two which is contrary to law, speed and absence of taking the minimum precaution have become menace to the traffic. The new motorcycle, as it is, driven by a youngman in the present day society has also become a menace to the traffic. 1 cannot ignore these aspects, in case night precaution would have been taken, the motor-cycle might have dashed on the right side body of the fiat car but not on the middle portion to damage the bonnet of the engine of the fiat car. This also exhibits the speed at which the motor cycle was coming. These are some of the aspects which lead me to come to the conclusion that all the three drivers were equally responsible for the accident. 7. Normally, in appeal the compensation fixed by the tribunal is not to be disturbed. In a decision reported in S.K. Devi Vs. Uttam Bhoi and Another, it has been held: ....Law is well settled that on appeal the quantum of damages will not be disturbed unless either (i) the tribunal had applied a wrong principle of law, or, misdirected itself, or (ii) the amount awarded either was so inordinately low or was so inordinately high that it must be held as erroneous.... The father and the son are the only two witnesses to prove the quantum. Some documents have been produced to show that the son-claimant is an incometax assessee. Perusal of those documents would show that the son is an assessee in respect of income from his house. No document has been filed to prove the quantum of sale of cigarette, although the same was available from the nature of business carried on by the son. Perusal of those documents would show that the son is an assessee in respect of income from his house. No document has been filed to prove the quantum of sale of cigarette, although the same was available from the nature of business carried on by the son. When Income Tax assessment orders were produced, non-production of the business accounts would lead to the adverse inference that the production of the same would have been detrimental to the claimant. In such circumstances, I am of the view that loss of income of the son as assessed by the tribunal cannot be said to be unjust. 8. The quantum of compensation for physical pain mental shock and future pleasure is also no1 unreasonable. The assessment of the expenditure incurred for medical treatment is also just in the circumstances in the absence of production of the detailed accounts which both father and son claim to have maintained. Thus, there is nothing to disturb the quantum determined by the tribunal. 9. So far as the quantum determined for the father is concerned, the nature of injury is simple. In the circumstances, Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) awarded for medical treatment is not unjustified. 10. The owner of the truck was a party in the claim petition as well as in these two appeals. In spite of valid service of notice, he has decided not to appear in these appeals- Respondent No. 4, who is claimed to be the insurer of the truck, has appeared in both the appeals. Once having found the driver of the truck to be liable, the owner and the insurer ought to have been directed to pay the portion of the compensation as fixed by the tribunal. Mr. P. Roy. the learned Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the company is not the insurer of the truck. The tribunal has not considered this question. Ends of justice demands that the liability of respondent No. 4 is fixed. This can best be done in case this part of the claim is remitted back to the tribunal for consideration, after affording opportunity to the parties for the purpose. 11. In conclusion, the quantum of compensation and the liability of the owner of the fiat car and its insurer are affirmed. The reason for excluding the liability of the owner of the truck is vacated. 11. In conclusion, the quantum of compensation and the liability of the owner of the fiat car and its insurer are affirmed. The reason for excluding the liability of the owner of the truck is vacated. While the extent of liability of the driver of the truck is affirmed, the matter is remitted back for considering the liability of the insurer of the truck. 12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.