Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. These two appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and award dated 23.7.1992 passed by Shri P.N. Yadav, 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,45,000.00 together with interest at the rate of 12 per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants and it was ordered that the same amount should be paid half and half by the insurer, namely, M/S. National Insurance Company Limited of Trekker No. 8PM 1755 and the owner of Ambassador Car bearing registration No. MRF1306 as the accident was held due to composite negligence of both the vehicles. 2. The accident occurred on 24.11.1987 when the deceased Shyam Sunder Mishra travelling in the above mentioned trekker met with an accident when the trekker and the above-mentioned Ambassador car collided. The injured Shyam Sunder Mishra was then shifted to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi wherein he died due to the injuries on the next day i.e. on 25.11.1987. 3. The deceased Shyam Sunder Mishra was the Assistant Teacher in a school and as per the claim petition, the trekker on which he was on board was running in rash and negligent way and at a very high speed and near Barhi bridge, it dashed against motor car which was coming from the opposite direction. One Tapeshwar Singh had filed fardbeyan on the basis of which a formal first information report was drawn up in Barhi P.S. Case No. 180 of 1987. Afterwards, another fardbeyan was made by Naresh Kumar Mishra, the brother of the deceased on 25.11.1987. As per the pleadings in the accident claim petition, it was only alleged that the trekker was being driven in negligent way and both rashly and in high speed. The owner and the driver of the trekker filed written statement and according to them, the accident did not take place on account of fault Of the trekker rather it was due to the fault of Ambassador Car. 4. National Insurance Company contested the case contending inter-alia, that the accident took place due to rash and. negligent driving of the Ambassador Car referred to above and as such, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any compensation. Admittedly, the Ambassador Car was not insured at the relevant time. The owner of the Ambassador Car neither appeared nor contested the claim nor disclosed the name of the Insurance Company. negligent driving of the Ambassador Car referred to above and as such, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any compensation. Admittedly, the Ambassador Car was not insured at the relevant time. The owner of the Ambassador Car neither appeared nor contested the claim nor disclosed the name of the Insurance Company. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, four issues were framed and issue No. 2 was vital issue which ran as under: Did the accident resulting in the death of the deceased take place account of rash and negligent driving of the trekker or Ambassador Car or both? 6. P.W. 1 (Dilip Kumar Mishra) who was the younger brother of the deceased stated that he was travelling in the trekker along with his elder brother. According to him, the trekker was being driven very rashly and negligently even though the passenger who were boarded on the vehicle persuaded the driver not to drive so fast. The Insurance Company referred to the fard beyan filed by Tepeshwar Singh who was travelling on the trekker in question and according to that first information report, the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador Car. When there were two version of the same accident bringing the counter allegation of rash and negligent driving against both the vehicles, the learned court below considering the entire materials available On record has rightly applied the principles of res ipsa loquitur and held that as there was head on collusion just near Barhi bridge, the accident must have been caused due to composite negligence of both the vehicles. 7. On one hand Mr. Akhtar appearing for and on behalf of the appellant in M.A.No. 190 of 1992(R) argued strenuously on the basis of the fard beyan being recorded by a third party, namely. Tapeshwar Singh, on the other hand Mr. S.N. Lal appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 92 of 1994 (R) tressed on the evidence adduced by Dilip Kumar Mishra, the younger brother the deceased in the case. It must be mentioned here that the owner of Ambassador Car and the national Insurance Company with whom the trekker was insured had filed separate appeals bringing allegations and counter allegations against the evidence of accident. 8. On going through the impugned judgment. It must be mentioned here that the owner of Ambassador Car and the national Insurance Company with whom the trekker was insured had filed separate appeals bringing allegations and counter allegations against the evidence of accident. 8. On going through the impugned judgment. I find that the learned court below while appreciation evidence bringing allegation and counter allegation of rash and negligent driving against the both the vehicles held in such a situation rightly on the principle that the accident would speak for itself, namely, res ipsa loquitur and held that the accident took place due to composite negligence of both the vehicles. I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned court below in appreciating the evidence on record and then arrived at his decision. 9. Practically regarding quantum of compensation, nothing much has been argued but it has only been stated from the side M/S. National Insurance Company Limited that even if there is any composite negligence from the side of the National Insurance Company, its liability against the passenger as contemplated under Sec. 95A of the Motor Vehicles Act is limited to Rs. 15,000.00 and more than such amount cannot be awarded against the Insurance Company. Mr. Akhtar has submitted that the statutory liability can never be ignored in any view of the fact as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Shanti Bai and Ors. -- . In the present case, neither the insurance Company of the trekker nor its owner had filed policy nor there was any argument before the lower court regarding its liability limited in view. In this connection, the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi V/s. Jugal Kishore and Ors. -- , would be applicable. It must be looked that in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) Jugal Kishores case was referred to but the same has not been over-ruled. Moreover only be referring to statutory liability, the Insurance Company cannot absolve its contractual liability without the specified proof of Insurance policy. Hence, I do not any force in any of the appeals. 10. When composite negligence is there and when there is no scope of determination as to which of the vehicle was more liable than division of liability half and half is proper and justified. According to Mr. Hence, I do not any force in any of the appeals. 10. When composite negligence is there and when there is no scope of determination as to which of the vehicle was more liable than division of liability half and half is proper and justified. According to Mr. Akhtar, trekker being a light vehicle while Ambassador Car would be heavy one, so more compensation ought to have been imposed on the Ambassador Car. I do not find any force in such submission. The load of the Car can be taken at per as the trekker was even fully loaded with passengers. 11. In view of the above observations, there is no force in both these appeals and hence they are rejected but in the circumstances of the case, no cost is awarded to either of the parties.