Order Since these appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 11.4.2008 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunbal, Ranchi, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. MA 218/2008 arose out Compensation Case No. 85/2001, M.A. 219/2008 arose out of Compensation Case No. 93/ 2001 and MA 220/2008 arose out of Compensation Case No. 53/2001. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.3.2001 at about 9.30. P.M. Bhabani Shankar Pradhan along with his mother, Manorma Pradhan and his sister Kajol Pradhan was returning from Hatia Railway Station by his own auto-rickshaw bearing registration no. BR-14P-1873. The deceased, Bhabani Shankar Pradhan was himself driving the said auto-rickshaw. When the auto-rickshaw reached near Satellite colony suddenly a Dumper bearing registration No. BR-14G-8837 being driven very rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and dashed the autorickshaw as a result of which the driver Bhabani Shankar Pradhan, his mother and sister sustained grievous injuries. Smt. Manorma Pradhan died at the spot whereas Bhabani Shankar Pradhan was brought to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. One of the occupants of the auto-rickshaw, namely, Kajol Pradhan sustained grievous injuries which resulted in her permanent disablement to the extent of 50% Claim Case No. 85/2001 and Claim Case No. 93/2001 were filed by the father of the deceased and his mother whereas Claim Case No. 53/ 2001 was filed by the injured claimant Kajol Pradhan for the injury sustained by her. 4. The Tribunal framed as many as eight issues and decided the same in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper and, accordingly, the appellant who is the insurer of the Dumper, was directed to pay the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. Hence these appeals by the appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground that it is a case of contributory negligence inasmuch as the accident could have been avoided by the driver of the auto-rickshaw by taking care and by seeing the Dumper coming from the opposite direction. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel particularly because of the manner in which the accident took place. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel particularly because of the manner in which the accident took place. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver of the Dumper, at the relevant time, was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the auto-rickshaw from opposite direction. The impact of the accident was such that one of the occupants died at the spot and the driver of the auto-rickshaw succumbed to his injury when he was taken to hospital. Not only that, the auto-rickshaw was badly damaged. Mr. Lal then submitted that in any case it is a case of composite negligence inasmuch there was head on collision between the Dumper and the auto-rickshaw. According to the learned counsel, the liability should have been apportioned in between the insurer of the Dumper and the insurer of the auto-rickshaw. This submission also cannot be accepted. 6. As noticed above, since by reason of the said accident the driver and one of the occupants of the vehicle died at the spot, this case comes, within the four corners of contributory negligence and not composite negligence. Recently the Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 2008(6) see 767 held that there is distinction between the cases where the principle of composite negligence and contributory negligence applies. In our opinion, keeping in view the manner in which the accident took place and one of the occupants of the auto-rickshaw died at the spot, it can be safely held that the driver of the Dumper was negligent in driving the Dumper which resulted in such accident. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to a correct finding with regard to negligence of the driver of the Dumper. The impugned judgment and award and the finding recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be interfered with. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in these appeals which are, accordingly, dismissed.