P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT nos. 1 to 6 filed claim application claiming compensation on account of death of narayan Moharana. The accident took place on 4. 7. 94 at about 7 a. m. on National highway No. 42 near Dihasahi. The deceased who was a Government servant (teacher) was travelling in a Trekker bearing the registration No. OR-05-B-0676 belonging to present respondent No. 7. At that time, a truck bearing registration No. OR-01-3337 belonging to the present respondent No. 8 was coming from opposite direction. There was a collision between the two vehicles as a result of which the deceased, one of the occupants in Trekker, was killed. ( 2 ) IN the proceeding, the owner of the trekker did not appear, but the insurer (the present appellant) filed written statement alleging that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of the truck driver. The owner of the truck contested the case and denied in general the allegations made in the claim application and further claimed that the truck being insured with the present respondent No. 9, liability if any, is to be borne by the insurer. The present respondent No. 9, the insurer of the truck, however, did not contest the proceeding. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the Trekker. It awarded a sum of Rs. 2,98,000 as compensation and directed that the same should be paid by the present appellant. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sought to challenge the quantum of compensation assessed by the claims Tribunal. There is no dispute that the deceased was a school teacher and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,000 per month. It has been found that he was aged about 45 years at the time of death. Keeping in view the number of dependants, the Tribunal found Rs. 2,000 to be the monthly contribution and applying the multiplier of 12 and by adding a further sum of Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, etc. , the Tribunal directed payment of Rs. 2,98,000. In fact, the assessment of the Tribunal appears to be on the conservative side. If the future prospects of the deceased would have been taken into consideration, then the amount of compensation would have been much higher. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, etc. , the Tribunal directed payment of Rs. 2,98,000. In fact, the assessment of the Tribunal appears to be on the conservative side. If the future prospects of the deceased would have been taken into consideration, then the amount of compensation would have been much higher. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, by no stretch of imagination, award of a sum of rs. 2,98,000 can be said to be grossly high so as to warrant interference in this appeal at the instance of the insurance company. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the accident was caused due to negligence of the truck driver and as such, the owner of Trekker and consequently, the present appellant should not have been made liable. It has been submitted that in the claim application, it had been alleged that the truck was being driven at a very high speed and the entire blame was on the truck driver. It is further submitted that from the F. I. R. also similar conclusion can be drawn. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it appears that there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles. It further appears from the evidence that the accident occurred on the National Highway and there was enough space for both the vehicles to pass each other safely. PW 1 in her statement had stated that the collision took place exactly on the middle portion of the road. Similarly, PW 2 has stated that the collision of Trekker and the truck was front to front. In other words, it is apparent that there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles on the middle of the road. The drivers of the two vehicles have not been examined by their respective owners or insurance companies. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent in equal proportion and the accident occurred due to their composite negligence. ( 6 ) SINCE the death occurred due to composite negligence of the two drivers, the claimants have the option of recovering the compensation amount from the two owners jointly or severally and similarly from the two insurers, if it is found that both the vehicles had been validly insured. ( 6 ) SINCE the death occurred due to composite negligence of the two drivers, the claimants have the option of recovering the compensation amount from the two owners jointly or severally and similarly from the two insurers, if it is found that both the vehicles had been validly insured. So far as the present appellant is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has already found that Trekker had been insured with the present appellant and the present appellant is otherwise liable to pay the amount. The question as to whether the other vehicle had been insured with the insurance company (respondent No. 9) has not been determined and as the insurance company had remained absent, there is lack of material on record and as such it would not be proper to come to any finding on the said aspect. Since composite negligence has been established, it would be open to the claimants to recover the entire amount from the present appellant and in such an event, it would be open to the present appellant to file an appropriate application before the claims Tribunal for reimbursement to the extent of fifty per cent from the owner of the truck and/or the insurer of the truck as the case may be. If such application is filed, the Claims Tribunal after issuing notice to the owner of the truck and the insurer of the said truck will determine the question as to whether the truck had been validly insured or not and as to whether the insurer of the said truck is otherwise liable or not. If it is found that the insurer of the truck is also liable, necessary direction regarding reimbursement to the present appellant can be given by the Claims tribunal, which can be executed by following the procedure envisaged in section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, if it is found that the insurer of the truck is not otherwise liable, necessary direction can be given to the owner of the truck to reimburse fifty per cent of the amount to the present appellant. ( 7 ) SUBJECT to the aforesaid direction, the misc. appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.