JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 4th of September, 2003 passed by the III-MACT, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 272/229(C) of 1997-95 by which it has been held that the insurers of the offending truck and trekker were equally liable to pay the compensation with interest to the claimants. 2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 12.06.1995 at about 5.30 PM while the deceased-Mahendra Sethi was returning to his village in a trekker from Jalada to Bari in a marriage party, a truck bearing registration NO. AP-16T-6845 coming from Bhadrak side dashed against the trekker on NH-5 near Matiapada Dhaba. Further case of the claimants was that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. As a result of the said accident the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a washer man in a Laundry with a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- with which he was maintaining his family consisting of eight members. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4.45 lakhs. Before the Learned Tribunal, owner of the truck (OP-1) and owner of the trekker (OP-3) have been set ex parte. The Oriental Insurance Company (OP No. 2) and also the National Insurance Company (OP-4), the present Appellant contested the case by filing written statements. According to OP-2 (the insurer of the offending truck), it was not liable to pay compensation as the Insurance policy was not valid and the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the trekker. The case of OP-4 (the insurer of the trekker) is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck and as such OP-2 is liable to pay compensation. Both of them have denied their liability and called upon the claimants to prove the case by producing documentary evidence. 3. On the above pleading, Learned Tribunal framed the following four issues. i) Whether the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle was proximate cause of accident? ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence on the date of accident? 3. On the above pleading, Learned Tribunal framed the following four issues. i) Whether the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle was proximate cause of accident? ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence on the date of accident? iii) Whether the offending vehicle had a valid insurance covering on the date of accident? iv) Whether the claimants were entitled to get compensation and if so, to what extent and from whom? 4. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. Petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW-1 and a co-villager as PW-2. Opposite Parties have not examined any witness. The claimants filed certified copy of the Police papers. Opposite Parties also filed certified copies of the M.V.I. report, driving licence and photocopy of the insurance certificate. 5. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and rival contentions of the parties, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck the accident took place leading to death of the deceased. Charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck for his rash and negligent driving under Sections 279/337/338/304(A), I.P.C. Learned Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that as per the MVI report, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. Further, Learned Tribunal held that at the time of accident the driving licences of both the drivers were valid. It is also held by the Tribunal that the insurance policies of both the offending truck and trekker were valid on the date of accident. While determining the quantum of compensation, Learned Tribunal relying on the postmortem report took into, consideration the age of the deceased to be 20 years at the time of accident. The Learned Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month, but erroneously it assessed the annual income at Rs. 15,500/-. Applying multiplier of 16, Learned Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation approximately at Rs. 2.5 lakhs. After deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses; the Tribunal determined the compensation amount at Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Besides this, Learned Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the Learned Tribunal, in total, determined the compensation at Rs. 2.5 lakhs. After deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses; the Tribunal determined the compensation amount at Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Besides this, Learned Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the Learned Tribunal, in total, determined the compensation at Rs. 1.57 lakhs. Learned Tribunal further held that OPs 2 and 4 are liable to pay the compensation amount equally. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Tribunal, the National Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the Appellant-National Insurance Company (the insurer of the trekker) and Respondent No. 10-Oriental Insurance Company (the insurer of the offending truck) are equally liable to pay the compensation. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. In that event, the insurance Company of the offending truck is liable to pay the compensation amount. He further submits that while holding so, the Learned Tribunal relied on a certified copy of the MVI report (Ext.A). According to him, the certified copy of the MVI report has no evidentiary value as the concerned MVI was not examined by the Oriental Insurance Company, which produced the said certified copy. In absence of necessary examination, it was also deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining the MVI, who has submitted the report. According to him, merely producing a certified copy of the MVI report cannot be taken to be sufficient evidence. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the evidence of the claimants, who examined PW-2 as an eyewitness to the accident. According to the statement of PW-2, because of negligence of the driver of the offending truck the accident took place resulting in the death of the deceased. In cross-examination also nothing contrary has been elicited. On the other hand, the witness confirmed his statement by saying that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck the accident took place. He vehemently urged that the statement of the eyewitness, who was examined and cross-examined, has more evidentiary value. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh: 1) Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. He vehemently urged that the statement of the eyewitness, who was examined and cross-examined, has more evidentiary value. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh: 1) Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2) Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Dyes and Chemical Workers' Union, Petlad and Another, 3) Bommidala Poornaish Vs. The Union of India, 7. The Learned Counsel also relied on the additional evidence on which the common Judgment dated 04.02.2006 was passed by the 3rd MACT, Balasore. The Learned Counsel further submits that in the said Judgment, Learned Tribunal held that the Oriental Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the offending truck, was solely liable for payment of compensation. Concluding his argument, Learned Counsel submitted that the appeal should be allowed directing the Oriental Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded. 8. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, who have not preferred any appeal against the impugned award, draws attention of this Court to some arithmetical error appearing in the award. He points out that the Learned Tribunal estimated the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- and on that basis filed the annual income at Rs. 15,500/-. According to the Learned Counsel, if the monthly income is taken at Rs. 1,500 the annual income would be Rs. 18,000/- instead of Rs. 15,500/-. The Learned Counsel also further points out another arithmetical error, i.e., on the annual income of 18,000/- if 16 multiplier is applied, the same will come to Rs. 2.88 lakhs and not Rs. 2.50 lakhs as determined by the Tribunal. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution for maintenance of family comes to Rs. 1.92 lakhs instead of Rs. 1.50 lakhs, as determined by the Tribunal. If Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium are added to Rs. 1.92 lakhs, the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 1.99 lakhs instead of Rs. 1.57 lakhs. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Oriental Company-Respondent No. 10 submits that Learned Tribunal's finding should not be discarded as the same is based on evidence on record. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium are added to Rs. 1.92 lakhs, the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 1.99 lakhs instead of Rs. 1.57 lakhs. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Oriental Company-Respondent No. 10 submits that Learned Tribunal's finding should not be discarded as the same is based on evidence on record. He further submits that since the finding of the Tribunal is that the accident took place due to composite negligence, the Tribunal is justified in apportioning the compensation amount between the two Insurance Companies. 10. The crux of dispute in this case is whether the accident took place due to the composite negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles, i.e., the truck and the trekker or anyone of them. Learned Tribunal held both the insurers liable for payment of the awarded amount equally. The findings of the Learned Tribunal in this regard are at paragraphs-9 & 10 of the impugned award. The Learned Tribunal, after considering the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and F.I.R. lodged in G.R. Case No. 185/95 arising out of Simulia P.S. Case No. 44 of 1995, came to the conclusion in paragraph 9 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. But in paragraph-10 of the said award, Learned Tribunal observed that from the seizure list marked Ext.4 it is clear that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, and accordingly it answered the Issue. 11. Now the question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether reliance can be placed on the report of the M.V.I. which shows that both the truck and the trekker are responsible for causing the accident. But the fact remains that author of the report, i.e., M.V.I. has neither been examined nor cross-examined. P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence, was examined and cross-examined. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that he was coming in a trekker following the trekker in which the deceased was traveling. He saw the accident to have taken place on the middle of the road. During cross-examination, he has stated that the offending truck came in a high speed and dashed against the trekker. He further stated that the said accident could have been avoided had the truck would not have proceeded to its right. He saw the accident to have taken place on the middle of the road. During cross-examination, he has stated that the offending truck came in a high speed and dashed against the trekker. He further stated that the said accident could have been avoided had the truck would not have proceeded to its right. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. 12. Learned Counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company submitted that it is well settled position of law that the statement of any eyewitness should prevail over any documentary evidence given by an expert. He cited the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court as stated above. 13. In paragraph-12 of the Judgment in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai (supra) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. In paragraph-4 of the Judgment in Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. (supra) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Thus, if a person is to prove that he was ill on a particular date, the mere filing of a certificate of a medical man that he was ill on that date is not accepted as evidence to show that he was ill. The correctness of the statement made in certificate has to be proved by an affidavit or oral testimony in Court by the Doctor concerned or by some other evidence.... In paragraph-26 of the Judgment in Bommidala Poornaish (supra) case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: ...It is quite obvious that the opinion of an expert must be given orally and that a mere report or certificate by him cannot possibly be evidence. In paragraph-26 of the Judgment in Bommidala Poornaish (supra) case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: ...It is quite obvious that the opinion of an expert must be given orally and that a mere report or certificate by him cannot possibly be evidence. Unless the expert goes into the witness box and gives oral evidence, there can be no cross-examination of the expert at all. 14. Admittedly in this case, the author of the documentary evidence, i.e., M.V.I. has not been examined. In paragraph-9 of the award, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, the accident took place. While coming to such finding in paragraph-10 of the award the Tribunal has given a contrary finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles basing on the report of MVI. Such contrary views given by the Tribunal are not acceptable. 15. This Court is of the view that there is no sufficient reason to disbelieve the evidence of eyewitness (PW-2) and to accept report of MVI which has not been testified in any manner. The insurer of the offending truck is liable to pay the compensation, as has been awarded by the Learned Tribunal and recalculated by this Court rectifying the arithmetical errors. On recalculation, the amount comes to Rs. 1,99,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand) instead of Rs. 1,57,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty seven thousand). Accordingly, the Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid amount. So far the question of interest is concerned, 7.5 per cent would be the appropriate rate of interest. 16. This Court, therefore, directs that Respondent No. 10-Oriental Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,99,000 (Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand), within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment along with the accrued interest thereon till the date of deposit before the Learned Tribunal. After the awarded amount along with interest is deposited, Learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in the following manner. 1,99,000 (Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand), within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment along with the accrued interest thereon till the date of deposit before the Learned Tribunal. After the awarded amount along with interest is deposited, Learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in the following manner. (i) Thirty per cent of the total awarded amount shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Account in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years in the name of the wife of the deceased; (ii) Thirty per cent of the awarded amount shall be kept in a joint Fixed Deposit Account in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years in the names of the father and mother of the deceased; (iii) Twenty per cent of the awarded amount shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Account in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years in the joint names of the children of the deceased; (iv) Ten per cent of the awarded amount shall be paid to Respondent No. 2-wife of the deceased in cash on proper identification; and (v) Balance 10 per cent of the awarded amount shall be paid to the parents of the deceased in cash on proper identification. 17. This Court further makes it clear that the fixed deposits, as directed above, cannot be mortgaged or pledged for any purpose. No intermittent withdrawal in any shape of loan or otherwise is permissible without prior knowledge of the Tribunal. The monthly interest which would be earned from the above fixed deposits shall be paid to the wife and the parents of the deceased regularly. 18. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court along with accrued interest shall be refunded to the Appellant by Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on production of the receipt showing deposit of the compensation amount along with interest, as directed above before the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed