MOHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short Act) is preferred by the Insurance Company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 18. 5. 2002 passed in MVC No. 678/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur, (for short MACT) ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows:- respondents 1 to 5 herein are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasahab Shakapur who was working as a JCB Operator, and died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on Nidagundhi Bijapur road near B. Bagewadi Cross at about 3. 30 a. m. on 27. 6. 2000. The deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur was traveling in Mahindra jeep bearing certificate of registration No. KA-28/m-2202 owned by the 4th respondent and insured by the appellant herein. The truck bearing certificate of registration No. KA-30/2978 owned by the 6th respondent and insured by the 7th respondent herein was coming in the opposite direction. At B. Bagewadi Cross, the truck, it is alleged, came in a zigzig manner, as a result, both the vehicles i. e, the jeep and the truck collided head on and in the said accident, the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur traveling in the jeep died instantaneously. The claimants having instituted claim proceedings in MVC No. 678/2000 sought for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest. The claimants claimed that they are the father, mother, widow and two minor children of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakpur, totally dependant on the earnings of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE respondents, on notice, filed their written statement, denying all the material averments of the claim petition, but however admitted the accident. The insurers of both the motor vehicles had denied their liability while admitting having insured the motor vehicles. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT, framed the following issues:-1. Whether the petitioner prove that Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Hanumanthappa Shakapur, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27. 6. 2000 at 3. 30a. m. on Nidagundhi Bijapur road, near B. Bagewadi Cross was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-28/m-2202 and the truck bearing Registration No. KA-30/2978 by their respective drivers? Whether the petitioner prove that Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Hanumanthappa Shakapur, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27. 6. 2000 at 3. 30a. m. on Nidagundhi Bijapur road, near B. Bagewadi Cross was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-28/m-2202 and the truck bearing Registration No. KA-30/2978 by their respective drivers? If so, what is the percentage of negligence of drivers of each vehicle?2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from which of the respondents?3. What Order? ( 4 ) THE claimants examined three witnesses of which P. W. 1 was the first claimant, P. W. 2, an eye-witness and P. W. 3, the employer of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur and got marked documents at Exhibits P. 1 to P. 7. The third respondent i. e. , the insurer of the truck bearing No. KA-30/2978, examined one witness, its Officer, and got exhibited the documents at Exhibits R. 2 to R. 5. The appellant, apart form exhibiting the insurance policy at Exhibit R. 1, did not adduce any oral evidence. ( 5 ) THE MACT, having evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record, fastened the liability of rash and negligent driving on the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m-2202 and having caused the accident, resulting in the death of Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur. As regards the question of quantum of compensation, the MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,94,200/- together with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No. 5 in the claim petition i. e. , the appellant herein, who is the insurer of Mahindra jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m-2202 has preferred this appeal, questioning the findings on the issue of rash and negligent driving as well as the compensation awarded by the MACT in the impugned judgment and award. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) THE allegations leveled against the drivers of the motor vehicles viz. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) THE allegations leveled against the drivers of the motor vehicles viz. , the jeep and the truck is that both the vehicles were driven in a rash and negligent manner and the truck was moving in a zigzig manner on the road and the driver of the jeep collided head on with the truck, as a result of which Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur was JCB Operator and was earning Rs. 6,000/- p. m. and was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. No documents were produced to substantiate the age of the deceased except the postmortem report, Exhibit P. 2. , which estimated his age as 28 years. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR, Exhibit P. 1; the Spot Panchanama, Exhibit P. 2 and the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, Exhibit P. 3, did not indicate the material particulars about the place of impact; the spot of accident nor evidence of any skid marks, to establish that the Mahindra jeep bearing No. KA-28/m-2202 was solely responsible for the head on collusion. In the absence of the Investigating Officers evidence, there was no substantive evidence to establish that the driver of the jeep was solely responsible for the cause of accident. Smt. B. V. Nagaratna, the learned Counsel for the appellant, further pointed out that the evidence of eye-witness, P. W. 2, supported her case that it was the truck which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the collusion between the vehicles. She further sought to contend that the MACT had placed reliance upon Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 i. e. , the photographs exhibited by the insurer of the truck, to render a finding of guilt on the driver of the jeep, was perverse as the same were not proved in evidence and had no evidentiary value. The Deployment of Unit Method by the MACT in arriving at compensation towards loss of dependency, instead of applying the Multiplier Method, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) SMT. Padma S. Uttar, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, would maintain that the judgment and award impugned is in accordance with law, just, fair and reasonable. ( 8 ) SMT. Padma S. Uttar, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, would maintain that the judgment and award impugned is in accordance with law, just, fair and reasonable. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent No. 7, the insurer of the truck sought to sustain the judgment and award impugned and contended that there was no infirmity either in law or in the facts of the case that calls for any interference in this appeal. The learned Counsel further sought to contend that the photographs, Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 were sufficient proof of the fact that the jeep had crossed the center line (median) and dashed against the left side of the truck having come in its way, which was proceeding on the correct side of the road. The finding of the MACT of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep is sought to be sustained. ( 10 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the question that arise for determination in this appeal are:-1. Whether the finding of the MACT that the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m-2202 was solely responsible for the accident having driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, is justified? Or whether it was the driver of the truck bearing registration No. KA-30/2978, who was solely responsible for the rash and negligent driving of the truck, resulting in the accident? Or whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles i. e. , the jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m/2202 and truck bearing registration No. KA-30/2978? If so, what would be the percentage of negligence of drivers of each of the vehicles?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of compensation of the case, the award of compensation of Rs. 4,94,200/- with interest at 6% p. a. by the MACT is just, fair and reasonable? ( 11 ) THE first claimant i. e. , the father of the deceased is examined as P. W. 1, who is not an eye-witness to the alleged accident. 4,94,200/- with interest at 6% p. a. by the MACT is just, fair and reasonable? ( 11 ) THE first claimant i. e. , the father of the deceased is examined as P. W. 1, who is not an eye-witness to the alleged accident. He has placed before the MACT, the First Information Report at Exhibit P. 1, the Spot Panchanamma at Exhibit P. 2, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report at Exhibit P. 3 in support of his case that there was rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the motor vehicles. The claimants have examined an eye-witness Santosh Agarwal as P. W. 2, who is said to have witnessed the accident as he was riding his motor cycle and was behind the jeep. It is also in his evidence that he is known to the owner of the jeep i. e. , respondent No. 8. He testified that the jeep and the truck were both traveling at a very high speed and it was the truck that had come in the way of the jeep being driven on its correct side of the road, dashed against the jeep. He stated that the jeep was on its extreme left side of the road and it was the truck which came on the wrong side and dashed against the jeep. As against this evidence, respondent No. 7, the insurer of the truck examined R. W. 1, its Officer and produced the photographs at Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 in order to prove that the jeep had collided with the truck on the wrong side of the road as is evident from the photographs which depict that after the accident, the vehicles were standing opposite to each other. The jeep according to the said witness was on the wrong side of the road i. e. , on its extreme right side and had collided with the truck which was on its correct side of the road and therefore, the jeep had come in the way of the truck and had caused the accident. It is in the testimony of R. W. 1 that his Company had appointed a Government Surveyor, who, after an enquiry, secured the photographs and submitted his report. It is in the testimony of R. W. 1 that his Company had appointed a Government Surveyor, who, after an enquiry, secured the photographs and submitted his report. With this as material before the MACT, the Insurer of the truck sought to establish that the driver of the jeep insured by the appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving. It is significant to note that the appellant had not placed any material to substantiate the fact that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck, that the accident had occurred. ( 12 ) THE issue involved is as to which of the drivers was responsible for the actionable negligence be fastened ? In order to reassess the entire oral and documentary evidence, all that we have is the evidence of eye-witness P. W. 2, the documents Exhibits P. 1 to P. 3, the evidence of R. W. 1 and the documents Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 i. e. , the photographs. Smt. B. V. Nagaratna, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the insurer of the jeep, placing reliance upon the oral evidence of P. W. 2 Santosh Agarwal, the only eye-witness to the incident, sought to contend that PW. 2 was an independent witness having nothing to do with any of the parties, was traveling on his motor bike behind the jeep and had witnessed the accident and thereafter had informed the owner of the jeep about the accident. She contends that this witness has pointedly stated that both the motor vehicles were traveling at a high speed and it was the truck which came on to the wrong side of the road and collided with the jeep. Learned Counsel sought to recreate the accident in the light of evidence of P. W. 2 and contended that this evidence of P. W. 2 was more reliable than that of photographs, Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3. She sought to contend that the photographs, Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 were got exhibited through R. W. 1 who was not the photographer, but that R. W. 1 had spoken to records and therefore, no evidential value could be attached to the said photographs Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3. She sought to contend that the photographs, Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 were got exhibited through R. W. 1 who was not the photographer, but that R. W. 1 had spoken to records and therefore, no evidential value could be attached to the said photographs Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3. Her futher contention is that these two photographs were admittedly taken much later after the accident and at best, they represent the position of the vehicles at the time of taking the photographs and not at the time when the accident took place at 3. 30 a. m. i. e, in the early hours of 27. 6. 2000. She however relied upon the evidence of R. W. 1 to contend that the said witness had also admitted that both the vehicles had collided head on. She urged that whenever an accident occurs on a National Highway, it inevitably obstructs totally or partially the Highway and consequently, it is the practice to move the vehicles out of the way after recording of Panchanama and the Spot Sketch. It is no doubt true that the vehicular traffic on National Highways are always moving at a high speed and that police would remove the vehicles to the side of the road, as early as possible. Therefore, the learned Counsel Smt. Nagaratna sought to contend that the photographs Exhibits R. 2 and 3 did not necessarily represent the exact place of impact and the manner in which the accident took place. ( 13 ) OF course, the possibility of the vehicles having been shifted from the spot of the accident in order to accommodate the traffic on the National Highway is a matter of practice with the authorities of the Police. What appears strange to us is that the left side of the vehicles are damaged while the photographs Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 clearly indicate that both the vehicles are opposite to each other and the jeep was on the extreme right side of the road i. e, on the wrong side of the road. It is also in evidence that the truck was loaded with goods to be carried to Ahmedabad and the jeep which is smaller of the two had been badly damaged, having hit the front left side of the truck. It is also in evidence that the truck was loaded with goods to be carried to Ahmedabad and the jeep which is smaller of the two had been badly damaged, having hit the front left side of the truck. It is also in evidence that the road where the accident is said to have occurred, has a bend. ( 14 ) IT would be difficult for us to totally ignore the evidence of P. W. 2, the eye-witness who had deposed that both the vehicles were driven at a very high speed. The Panchanama does not disclose the details of the spot of accident, the place of impact or any reference to evidence of the brake marks. In the FIR, there is a mention that the road had a bend. The photographs having not been established by examining the Photographer, much reliance cannot be placed on Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3. Learned Counsel, Smt. Nagaratnas contention is that both the vehicles were driven at a high speed and that the vehicles were coming in the opposite direction, it is possible that both of them might have taken evasive action and ultimately, resulted in collusion. In the face of the oral and documentary evidence mentioned above, the question would be as to how and in what circumstances, the jeep and truck involved in the collusion, by which the left side of both the vehicles were damaged. Evaluating the documentary evidence i. e. , the FIR in which there is a mention that the road where the accident had occurred, had a bend coupled with the evidence of P. W. 2 and R. W. 1, the only explanation for the head on collusion is that the driver of the jeep must have traveled at a high speed while the driver of the truck too must have driven his vehicle at a high speed and having negotiated the curve, the drivers of both the vehicles must have lost control over the vehicles. If the drivers of both the truck and the jeep had traveled at a reasonable speed, the accident could have been avoided. It is therefore obvious that both the motor vehicles were driven at a high speed and both the drivers did contribute to the negligence. If the drivers of both the truck and the jeep had traveled at a reasonable speed, the accident could have been avoided. It is therefore obvious that both the motor vehicles were driven at a high speed and both the drivers did contribute to the negligence. We therefore, find that there is an equal degree of fault on the part of the driver of the truck and on the part of the driver of the jeep as well, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the drivers of both the vehicles are equal contributories to the cause of accident. The finding of the MACT that the driver of the jeep had attempted to overtake some vehicle and in that process, had dashed the truck, is perverse. There was absolutely no material for the MACT, either oral or documentary, to show that the jeep had attempted to overtake some vehicle. We find sufficient force in the contention of Smt. Nagaratna that based on such an observation, the finding of the MACT, fastening the liability of rash and negligent driving on the driver of the jeep, is perverse. We, therefore, set aside the finding recorded by the MACT, fastening total liability on the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m-2202 and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the liability is fastened on the driver of the truck bearing No. KA-30/2978 and the jeep bearing No. KA-28/m-2202 in the ratio of 50:50. Smt. Nagaratna, learned Counsel for the appellant, placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of GANESH vs SYED MUNNED AHAMED AND OTHER reported in ILR 1999 KAR 403 to contend that the liability in case of composite negligence is joint and several. It is no doubt true that in the facts and circumstances and having concluded that there is composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles in question, the liability of the owner and the insurer of each of the vehicles is joint and several. ( 15 ) SMT. NAGARATNA also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. MUTHULAKSHMI AND ANOTHER vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS in M. F. A. No. 5626/2001 and connected cases dated 17. 9. ( 15 ) SMT. NAGARATNA also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. MUTHULAKSHMI AND ANOTHER vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS in M. F. A. No. 5626/2001 and connected cases dated 17. 9. 2002 in support of her submissions that no evidentiary value could be attached to the photographs, Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3. The facts of the said case also relate to head on collusion between two vehicles and in which the photographs indicating the position of the vehicles were considered by the Bench while arriving at a finding of composite negligence. In the said case, the photographs were produced and marked as evidence through a photographer and rightly so, the Bench has considered the same in tandem with attendant facts and circumstances established in the said case. In the case on hand, the photographs Exhibits R. 2 and R. 3 are marked through R. W. 1, who was not the photographer nor was the photographer examined and therefore, the same have no evidentiary value. Moreover, the photographs in the instant case were taken much later in time. The judgment, in our opinion, has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 16 ) WITH regard to the award of compensation towards loss of dependency, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the MACT ought to have applied the Multiplier Method instead of Unit Method, by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, since the family of the deceased is very small. It is her further contention that the principles laid down in GULAM KHADAR AND OTHER vs UNITED INDIA COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHER reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4416 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and therefore, the MACT committed a manifest error in applying the said principles. The evidence of the first claimant i. e. , the father of the deceased is that he is aged about 50 years, his wife is aged about 49 years and the deceased also left behind him his young widow, aged 24 years and two minor children, aged 5 years and 2 years, being daughter and son respectively. It is in evidence that all of them were totally dependant upon the earnings of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur. It is in evidence that all of them were totally dependant upon the earnings of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur. This evidence of the claimants is not seriously disputed in the cross-examination. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 to impeach his evidence or any contra evidence of the appellant. It therefore, remains established that all the claimants were totally dependent on the earnings of the deceased. In view of the established fact that the family of the deceased consists of his dependants viz. , parents, widow and two minor children of tender age, totaling to five members and in particular the ages of the minor children coupled with the fact that the parents and the widow of the deceased not being earning members, the MACT was justified in applying the Unit method and deducting 1/3rd of the annual income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses in order to quantify the loss of dependency. We do not find any infirmity in the deployment of this method. This contention of Smt. Nagaratna deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise, adopting the Multiplier Method, the compensation towards loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,89,232/- as against the compensation awarded by the MACT at Rs. 4,57,200/ -. We do not find any justification to interfere with the award of the MACT towards loss of dependency. The award of compensation under the conventional heads are not questioned by the appellant and therefore, there is no need for us to review the same in this appeal. ( 17 ) WHILE admitting the appeal, by an order dated 10. 10. 2002 as found in the docket sheet, interim stay was ordered, subject to appellant depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest within 4 weeks before the MACT. We are informed by Smt. Nagaratna, learned Counsel for the appellant that the said sum is deposited and accordingly, the claimants have withdrawn the same. 10. 2002 as found in the docket sheet, interim stay was ordered, subject to appellant depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest within 4 weeks before the MACT. We are informed by Smt. Nagaratna, learned Counsel for the appellant that the said sum is deposited and accordingly, the claimants have withdrawn the same. In view of our finding that the drivers of both the vehicles had contributed to the negligence and there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50:50, the award impugned, needs to the modified, fastening the liability to pay the compensation jointly and severally, in the ratio of 50:50 between the owner and the insurer of the truck bearing No. KA-30/2978 and the owner and insurer of the jeep bearing No. KA-28/m-2202. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 18. 5. 2002 passed in MVC No. 678/2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur, stands modified to the extent mentioned supra. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .