C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 who are wife, minor son, parents and brothers of D. Sudhakar (the deceased), who died due to an accident that occurred due to a collision between the jeep belonging to seventh respondent and insured with eighth respondent, being driven by the deceased and a bus belonging to the appellant, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the appellant and respondents 7 and 8, alleging that the accident involving the deceased and others occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. Appellant filed its counter alleging that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, while driving the jeep. Seventh respondent filed counter contending that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, appellant only is liable to pay the compensation. Eighth respondent filed counter putting the respondents to proof of the allegations in the petition. In support of the case of respondents 1 to 6, three witnesses were examined as P. Ws. 1 to 3 and exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. On its behalf, appellant examined the driver of the bus as R. W. 1, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Respondents 7 and 8 did not adduce evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, awarded Rs. 3,43,400/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 6 from the appellant. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded to respondents 1 to 6, against it the first respondent before the Tribunal preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for parties. ( 3 ) THE points for consideration in this appeal are 1. Due to whose negligence did the accident occur? 2. To what compensation are the respondents 1 to 6 entitled? Aggrieved by the compensation awarded to respondents 1 to 6, against it the first respondent before the Tribunal preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for parties. ( 3 ) THE points for consideration in this appeal are 1. Due to whose negligence did the accident occur? 2. To what compensation are the respondents 1 to 6 entitled? ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the evidence of R. W. 1 shows that the deceased, while overtaking a bus proceeding in front of his jeep, dashed against the bus being driven by R. W. 1, it is clear that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, but not due to the rash and negligent driving of R. W. 1. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 and also the learned counsel for the seventh respondent is that, in view of the evidence of P. W. 2, who is an eyewitness to the accident, it is clear that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of R. W. 1 the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. It is his contention that, it is difficult to believe that the deceased, who was going up hills, would be driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and contended that since R. W. 1 was coming from Tirumala to Tirupathi there is every possibility for R. W. 1 driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. He also contends that sine the F. I. R. and the charge sheet filed by police show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of r. W. 1, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R. W. 1 needs no interference. ( 5 ) SINCE P. W. 1 (4th respondent) was not an eyewitness to the accident, her evidence is not relevant to this point. Since P. W. 3 was examined to speak about the income of the deceased and was not a witness to the accident, his evidence also is not relevant for this point. ( 5 ) SINCE P. W. 1 (4th respondent) was not an eyewitness to the accident, her evidence is not relevant to this point. Since P. W. 3 was examined to speak about the income of the deceased and was not a witness to the accident, his evidence also is not relevant for this point. The evidence of P. W. 2 is that he was proceeding in the jeep along with the deceased to Tirumala and that the deceased was driving the jeep on the left side of the road slowly and when the jeep reached near a road turning, a bus belonging to the appellant, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the jeep resulting in injuries to him and to others and instantaneous death to the deceased. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the deceased overtook a bus proceeding in front of his jeep and in that process dashed against the bus being driven by R. W. 1, which was coming in his opposite direction and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. ( 6 ) THE evidence of R. W. 1 who was the driver of the bus involved in the accident, is that at the time of accident he was proceeding from Tirumala to Tirupathi, and that he, having found a bus coming in his opposite direction, stopped the bus to give way to that bus and in the meanwhile a jeep overtook the bus coming in his opposite direction, ignoring the prohibition imposed of over taking vehicles on the ghat road, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the bus being driven by him. During cross examination, he stated that the distance between his bus and the bus that was coming in his opposite direction was 40 feet and that the jeep involved in the accident came from behind the bus coming in his opposite direction. He admitted that there are protective walls on either side of the road and denied the suggestion that no RTC bus came in his opposite direction and that he, due to his negligence, dashed the jeep being driven by the deceased. ( 7 ) EX. He admitted that there are protective walls on either side of the road and denied the suggestion that no RTC bus came in his opposite direction and that he, due to his negligence, dashed the jeep being driven by the deceased. ( 7 ) EX. A1 (F. I. R. issued in connection with the accident) shows that report regarding the accident was given by one T. Ramana alleging that when he was proceeding in the jeep bearing No. AP 03 A 7683 from Tirupathi to Tirumala and traveled a distance of about 5 KM, of the ghat road, a bus belonging to the appellant being driven at a high speed, dashed against the right side front portion of the jeep. Ex. A2 is the Post Mortem examination report of the deceased and Ex. A3 is the panchanama of inquest held on the dead body of the deceased which shows that neither P. W. 2 nor the person who gave F. I. R. was examined during inquest. Ex. A4, Motor Vehicles Inspector s report shows that the right side front portion of both the vehicles involved in the accident i. e. bus and the jeep, were damaged and that brakes of both the vehicles were efficient and were intact and that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. Ex. A5, certified copy of the charge sheet filed by police against R. W. 1, shows that P. W. 2 is cited as L. W. 2. A reading of Ex. A5 discloses that the investigating officer did not take the trouble of conducting a panchanama of the scene of accident nor was a sketch of the scene of accident drawn, to show where actually the collision between the two vehicles took place i. e. , whether it was on the middle of the road or left side or right side of the road. He seems to have conducted only table investigation, and that he solely basing on the evidence of witnesses examined by him, seems to have filed the charge sheet against R. W. 1. In all motor accidents cases, panchanama and sketch of the scene of accident are very important, as they would show the place where actually the accident occurred and would assist the Court in coming to a correct conclusion. In all motor accidents cases, panchanama and sketch of the scene of accident are very important, as they would show the place where actually the accident occurred and would assist the Court in coming to a correct conclusion. Picking and choosing witnesses and the investigation officers filing charge sheet solely on the basis of those statements, even without taking the trouble of going to the scene of accident is improper and should be depr ecated. ( 8 ) THE accident is admitted. The evidence of P. W. 2, who is a witness to the accident, shows that the accident took place near a road curve. Ex. A4 (Motor vehicles Inspector s report) shows that the brakes of both the vehicles were efficient. If the driver of the vehicles involved in the accident were driving their respective vehicles carefully, they could have averted the accident. If really the deceased, who was driving the jeep, was proceeding slowly and carefully, as stated by P. W. 2, while was going up the hill to Tirumala from tirupathi, on seeing the bus coming in his opposite direction at a high speed, he should have stopped the jeep on the left side of the road to avoid collision. Had R. W. 1 been careful, he also could have avoided the accident. Therefore, it is clear that the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident i. e. the deceased and R. W. 1 were negligent at the time of accident and each of them can be attributed with 50% negligence. So I hold that the accident occurred due to 50% negligence of R. W. 1 and due to 50% negligence of the deceased. The point is answered accordingly. POINT NO. II ( 9 ) THE Tribunal having held that the earnings of the deceased were about rs. 2,400/- p. m. took his contribution to Respondents 1 to 6 as Rs. 1,600/- p. m. and keeping in view that the fact that the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of his death, fixed the multiplier at 17 and awarded compensation of rs. 3,43,400/- under various heads. The compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. 1,600/- p. m. and keeping in view that the fact that the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of his death, fixed the multiplier at 17 and awarded compensation of rs. 3,43,400/- under various heads. The compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. In fact, the compensation awarded under some heads is inadequate, but since respondents 1 to 6 have not preferred any cross objections, I do not wish to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and so I hold that respondents 1 to 6 are entitled to rs. 3,43,400/- as compensation from appellant and respondents 7 and 8. The liability of the appellant is to the extent of Rs. 1,71,700/- and the liability of respondents 7and 8 is to the extent of Rs. 1,71,700/ -. Here it should be stated that 7th respondent in his counter specifically alleged that his jeep was insured with 8th respondent by the date of accident. 8th respondent also admitted insurance of the jeep with it in its counter, but took a plea that 7th respondent is not shown as the owner in the policy. Neither 7th respondent nor 8th respondent produced the policy into Court, nor did they adduce evidence to show that they are not liable to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 6 for the death of the deceased Since the deceased died while driving the jeep belonging to 7th respondent which was insured with 8th respondent irrespective of the fact that the deceased died due to his own negligence, respondents 7 and 8 are also liable to pay the compensation to respondents 1 to 6 in view of the ratio in THE united INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. Vs. PITHANI VENKANNA. This point is answered accordingly. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part and an award is passed for rs. 3,43,400/- in favour of respondents 1 to 6 against appellant and respondents 7 and 8 with interest at 9% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs in the Tribunal. From out of that amount the liability of the appellant is to the extent of Rs. 1,71,700/- and interest thereon, and half of the costs and the liability of respondents 7 and 8 to the extent of Rs. From out of that amount the liability of the appellant is to the extent of Rs. 1,71,700/- and interest thereon, and half of the costs and the liability of respondents 7 and 8 to the extent of Rs. 1,71,700/-and interest thereon and half of the costs. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.