JUDGMENT This C.MA is filed by the 2nd respondent in O.p.No. 675 of2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kurnool, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 19-4-2005. 2. The 1st respondent filed the O.P., claiming a compensation of Rs.1, 50,000/-. He pleaded that he is a worker at Autonagar in Kurnool, and on 19-2-2003, when he was crossing the road, a scooter bearing NO.AP-21 G-2593, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the 41h respondent, came from Kurnool town, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit him. It is stated that he fell on the left side of the road, and in the meanwhile, a lorry bearing No.AP-11T-1781, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, came at a high speed from Sellary Chowrasta side, and hit the scooter. The scooter is said to have fallen on the legs of the 151 respondent, and thereby he sustained injuries. The claim was resisted by the appellant, as well as respondent No.4, who are the insurers of both the vehicles. an a consideration of the entire evidence before it, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1 ,00,000/-, and held the appellant and 2nd respondent jointly and severally liable to pay the same, and dismissed the a.p, against respondents 3 and 4. Hence this appeal. 3. Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal recorded a definite finding that the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter, and de hors such a finding, it fastened the liability, only on the owner and insurer of the lorry. He contends that there is a serious inconsistency in the findings, on the one hand, and relief, on the other hand. 4. Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 151 respondent, submits that the discussion undertaken by the Tribunal on issue No.1, discloses that both the vehicles were responsible for the injuries sustained by his client, and that no interference is called for, as to the order under appeal. 4th respondent is represented by a counsel. 5. In the instant case, the 151 respondent was a pedestrian, and he was initially hit by a scooter. Subsequently, the lorry, which was coming behind, hit the scooter and the same is said to have in turn fallen upon the legs of the 151 respondent. 4th respondent is represented by a counsel. 5. In the instant case, the 151 respondent was a pedestrian, and he was initially hit by a scooter. Subsequently, the lorry, which was coming behind, hit the scooter and the same is said to have in turn fallen upon the legs of the 151 respondent. A perusal of the discussion undertaken by the Tribunal, in relation to issue No.1, discloses that the 151 respondent, as P.W.1, has spoken to the contents of his claim petition. Nothing was elicited through him, to discredit his version. However, when it comes to the question of recording the finding, the Tribunal proceeded, as though the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter, alone. 6. A perusal of the petition, as well as the deposition of P.W.1, reveals that on being hit by the scooter, the 151 respondent fell apart, and instantly thereafter, a lorry came from behind and hit the scooter, which is already fallen on the ground. The scooter in turn has fallen on the legs of the 1st respondent, resulting in severe injuries to him. The whole episode, therefore, discloses that though the 151 respondent was directly hit by the scooter, he did not receive any severe injuries, and though the lorry did not hit him directly, he sustained injuries, on account of the fact that the scooter, which was hit by the lorry, has fallen on the legs of the 151 respondent. In this complex situation, it is difficult to hold that either the scooter or the lorry, were exclusively responsible for the injuries to 151 respondent. It cannot be ignored that the scooterist and the pillion rider were crushed under the wheels of the lorry. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to absolve the lorry of its liability, notwithstanding the finding arrived at by the Tribunal, on issue NO.1. This court is of the view that the scooter and lorry can be held liable, to the extent of 60% and 40%. 7. No grounds are urged, touching upon the quantum of compensation, nor was any permission obtained. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the C.MA is allowed, directing that the appellant and the 2nd respondent shall be liable to the extent of 40% and respondents 3 and 4 shall be liable to the extent of 60%, for paying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the C.MA is allowed, directing that the appellant and the 2nd respondent shall be liable to the extent of 40% and respondents 3 and 4 shall be liable to the extent of 60%, for paying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In all other respects, the order shall remain as it is. The appellant herein has deposited half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, in compliance with the conditions imposed by this Court, while granting interim order. Out of such amount, the 151 respondent shall be entitled to withdraw a sum, representing 40% of the compensation, and the balance shall be refunded to the appellant. It shall be open to the 151 respondent, to recover the remaining amount, from respondents 3 and 4. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.