Judgment – This appeal, preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated 18-05-1992, passed by the II Additional District Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital in MAC. Case No. 114 of 1986, whereby said Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants to be paid by National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, thereon. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-12-1985, Nand Kishore Saxena (deceased) was travelling in truck bearing registration No. U.P.M. /6278, from Haldwani to Kichcha. Said truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Jagdish Prasad. When the said truck reached near Teen Pani, another truck bearing registration No. U.S.R./ 5916, coming from the opposite direction from Kichcha to Haldwani, which was also being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Nirmal Singh, collided with truck registration No. U.P.M. /6278. Consequently, truck registration No. U.P.M. / 6278 turned turtle. In the accident Nand Kishore Saxena received injuries and died of the same. Claimants / respondents alleged the contributory negligence of both the trucks and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, from the owners of the trucks and the insurance companies, with whom the vehicles were insured. Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. was the insurer of the truck registration No. U.P.M. / 6278, while respondent No. 13 New India Assurance Company Ltd. was insurer of truck registration No. U.S.R. / 5916. 4. The petition was contested by owners of both the trucks and the insurance companies, with whom the trucks were insured. Written statements were filed on their behalf before the Tribunal, denying the allegations in the claim petition. It is also denied by the owners of the trucks that their trucks were being driven rashly and negligently by their drivers. It is also pleaded by the contesting respondents that the amount claimed is excessive. It is also alleged that the answering respondents were not liable to make any payment of compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case: 1. Whether, the truck registration No. U.P.M. /6278 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, if so, its effect ? 2. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case: 1. Whether, the truck registration No. U.P.M. /6278 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, if so, its effect ? 2. Whether, the truck registration No. U.S.R. /5916 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, if so, its effect? 3. To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled, and from whom? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that only the driver of the truck registration No. U.P.M. / 6278 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and, as such, held that the liability lies with the owner and insurer of said truck. It is further found by the Tribunal that the deceased was engaged as contractor with M/s Century Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Lal Kuan. His age was 32 years. He was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, at the time of his death. The claimants were the dependents on him. The multiplier of 20 was applied under the old law (Motor Vehicle Act, 1939) and the claim petition was allowed awarding Rs. 1,50,0001- as compensation to the claimants, as against the defendant National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant), with whom the truck registration No. U.P.M. 16278 was insured. Aggrieved by said award, this appeal was preferred by the Insurance Company before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1992, from where it is received by this Court, under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7. Perusal of the Tribunal's record shows that P.W. 1 Smt. Malti Saxena, widow of the deceased, has stated that on 11-12-1985, her husband was travelling in truck registration No. U.P.M. I 6278, on his way from Haldwani to Lal Kuan. Near Teen Pani, the truck collided with another truck bearing registration No. U.S.R. I 5916, which was coming from the opposite direction. In said accident her husband Nand Kishore Saxena died. The witness has further stated that her husband was earning member of the family and his earning was Rs. 1,5001- per month. Statement of P.W.1 is corroborated by eyewitness P.w.2 Govind Singh, who has stated that the drivers of the trucks, involved in the accident, were rash and negligent in driving their vehicles. The witness has further stated that her husband was earning member of the family and his earning was Rs. 1,5001- per month. Statement of P.W.1 is corroborated by eyewitness P.w.2 Govind Singh, who has stated that the drivers of the trucks, involved in the accident, were rash and negligent in driving their vehicles. Though, D.W.1 Sardul Singh, on behalf of the owner of the truck registration No. U.S.R. I 5916 has stated that its driver was driving the vehicle with slower speed, but this witness appears to be close relative of owner of truck registration No. U.S.R. 15916, and it is doubtful if he happened to be at the scene of the accident. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court is of the view, that the independent evidence of eyewitness Govind Singh, produced on behalf of the claimants, cannot be disbelieved, as such, the Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that only the driver of the truck registration No. U.P.M. I 6278 was at fault. It is established that there is equal contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the trucks. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 13, New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer of truck registration No. U.S.R. I 5916, argued that the truck registration No. U.P.M. I 6278 dashed with the truck registration No. U.S.R. I 5916 at the rear side, as such, it is not a case of head on collision, and contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the truck registration No. U.S.R. I 5916. The argument on behalf of respondent No. 13 appears to be misconceived one as it has come on the record that both the trucks were heading from opposite directions. It hardly matters whether the truck dashed at the front or at the side of rear part of the truck, for the fact remains that both the drivers were rash and negligent in driving their vehicles. Considering the contributory negligence established on the record on the part of both the vehicles, the Tribunal should have fixed equal liability of owners each of the vehicles while awarding the amount to the claimants. 9. Considering the contributory negligence established on the record on the part of both the vehicles, the Tribunal should have fixed equal liability of owners each of the vehicles while awarding the amount to the claimants. 9. On behalf of the appellant as well a son behalf of respondent No. 13, it is argued before this Court that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and insurers are not liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to the principle of law laid down in Ramesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.; reported in (2001) 6 SUPREME COURTCASES Pg. 713. To examine the applicability of said case law to the present case, this Court examined the oral evidence, recorded by the Tribunal. It is admitted to P.W.1 Smt. Malti Saxena, widow of the deceased, that her husband was travelling in truck registration No. U.P.M. I 6278. It is nowhere stated if he was a cleaner or conductor of the truck. Rather, it is admitted that he was a contractor with M/s Century Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Lal Kuan, as mentioned in the claim petition itself. As such, status of the deceased in the truck at the time of accident, was nothing but that of the gratuitous passenger. In the circumstances, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and respondent No. 13 deserves to be accepted. The liability of the insured cannot be shifted to the insurer in a case of death of a gratuitous passenger, as held by the Apex Court. In view of the above discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed to the extent the liability has been fixed on the insurers, without making them entitled to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles, involved in the accident. 10. For the reasons, as discussed above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 18-05-1992 is set aside to the extent it makes only appellant liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. While affirming the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded to the claimants, it is directed that said amount shall be liable to be paid by Ujagar Singh, owner of the truck registration No. U.P.M. /6278 and Jogendra Singh, owner of the truck registration No. U.S.R. /5916. While affirming the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded to the claimants, it is directed that said amount shall be liable to be paid by Ujagar Singh, owner of the truck registration No. U.P.M. /6278 and Jogendra Singh, owner of the truck registration No. U.S.R. /5916. The fifty per cent of the amount awarded shall be paid by appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. and rest of the fifty per cent shall be paid by respondent No. 13 New India Assurance Company Ltd. The said insurers may recover the amount paid by them from the respective owners of the trucks or from their legal representatives. The rate of interest is also reduced from nine per cent, per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal to six per cent, per annum, provided the amount is deposited within a period of one month, from today, before the Tribunal concerned. If the amount is not paid within said period, the rate of interest shall remain nine per cent, per annum. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court by the appellant, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Cross objections, if any, are dismissed. No order as to costs.