Judgment : R. Kantha Rao, J These two appeals arise out of the award, dated 03.05.2005 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in O.P.No. 438 of 2002. M.A.C.M.A.No.3600 of 2005 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, Proddatur, Kadapa District, which was figured as 4th respondent before the Tribunal below. Whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.1422 of 2006 is filed by the National Insurance Company, Secunderabad, which was figured as second respondent before the Tribunal below. Since both the appeals arise out of the award in relation to one and the same accident and common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. The brief facts necessary for disposing of two appeals may be stated as follows: The respondents 1 to 5 hereinafter referred as claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,0000/-on account of the death of B.P. Deepak Reddy in a motor accident occurred 29.05.2002. According to them, while the deceased, a Z.P.T.C. member was returning to Mydukur in the car bearing No. APD-1837 after attending Mahanadu on 28.05.2002 at about 2.30 a.m., the car dashed against the tractor bearing No. AP-21-T-4389 and trailor bearing No. AP-21-T-4390 which was coming in the opposite direction. The deceased received severe injuries and died thereafter in consequence of the said injuries on the spot. According to the claimants, the owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them. The 1st respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) is the owner of the tractor and the said vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)on the date of the accident. The third respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)is the owner of the car and the said vehicle was validly insured with the 4th respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)on the date of the accident. The respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) attributed the rash and negligent driving to the driver of the car; whereas the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) attributed rash and negligent driving to the driver of the tractor. The respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) attributed the rash and negligent driving to the driver of the car; whereas the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) attributed rash and negligent driving to the driver of the tractor. The learned Tribunal upon considering the material on record, held that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability at 25% and 75% holding that the respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 25% and the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 75%. The said finding is challenged by the respondents 2 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) in both the appeals filed by them. The learned Tribunal considering the factors viz. the deceased was aged 40 years on the date of his death, was an agriculturist and was also doing different kinds of business, considered his income at Rs.11,000/-per month and by applying the multiplier 15, as per Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarded compensation of Rs.13,45,000/-. The appellants in both the appeals filed petitions before the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, sought permission to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the insured without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. In the appeals, the appellant-insurance companies contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and out of proportion. They sought to reduce the compensation amount by awarding the compensation, which is just and reasonable. The claimants on the other hand contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal being just and reasonable and strictly considering the evidence before it in a right perspective and it being strictly in accordance with law, needs no interference. Basing on the rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination in these two appeals: i) Whether the accident occurred due to the fault of the drivers of both the vehicles, if so, what is the extent of liability of the insured and the insurer of each vehicle? Basing on the rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination in these two appeals: i) Whether the accident occurred due to the fault of the drivers of both the vehicles, if so, what is the extent of liability of the insured and the insurer of each vehicle? ii) Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable or the quantum of compensation needs any interference in these appeals? iii) To what relief? POINT NO.1: The version of the claimants basically as could be evident from the averments of the claim petition is that the accident occurred due to collision between both the vehicles and thus, their prayer before the Tribunal was to pass an award in their favour holding all the respondents liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident attributed the rash and negligent driving to the opposite vehicle and tried to avoid their liability to pay compensation. Curiously in this case, the F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the tractor. Whereas the police after investigating into the offence, filed charge sheet against the driver of the car attributing rash and negligent driving to him. The claimants filed the copy of the F.I.R., which is marked as Ex.A-1 and also the copy of the charge sheet, which is marked as Ex.A-4. Either the averments of the F.I.R. or the charge sheet, only contain the accusation and those documents by themselves can not be considered as proof of any fact. However, it has to be noticed that the charge sheet will be filed by the police after conducting entire investigation into the offence alleged. In the instant case, none of the parties examined the investigating officer to ascertain as to how ultimately the car driver was indicted, though originally the F.I.R. was filed against the tractor driver. The claimants examined PW-2, an eyewitness to the accident to establish as to how the accident occurred. In the instant case, none of the parties examined the investigating officer to ascertain as to how ultimately the car driver was indicted, though originally the F.I.R. was filed against the tractor driver. The claimants examined PW-2, an eyewitness to the accident to establish as to how the accident occurred. PW-2 deposed before the learned Tribunal that while he and the deceased Deepak Reddy were returning in the car after attending Mahanadu meeting on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2002, when the car reached R.G.M. Engineering College, they noticed the tractor driven by the first respondent coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at fast speed and on seeing the said vehicle, he cautioned the driver of the car to slow down the car, but in the meanwhile, both the vehicles collided with each other. This witness further specifically deposed before the Tribunal that the car driver was also driving the car at a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. Therefore, according to the version of PW2, the eyewitness to the accident who was coming along with the deceased in the car involved in the accident, the accident was the result of collision between both the vehicles and the drivers of both the vehicles are at fault in causing the accident. The version of PW-2 therefore supports the basic version of the claimants in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal rightly did not consider the evidence of RW-1, a Senior Assistant in the company of the appellant/NIC since he has absolutely no knowledge about the fact as to how the accident occurred and the report Ex.B-2 filed by him is that of the investigator appointed by the insurance company and moreover, the investigator who is an advocate was not examined by the insurance company and therefore, absolutely there is no evidentiary value for Ex.B-2 and the Tribunal is also justified in not taking into consideration the said report of the investigator. The National Insurance Company, the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1422 of 2006 also examined the tractor driver as RW-2 and he stated in his deposition that the car driver who was driving the car at fast speed tried to overtake the lorry proceeding ahead of the car and dashed the tractor despite the fact that on seeing the car, he swerved the tractor beyond the road margin and stopped the tractor there. This is altogether a different version which was introduced through the evidence of RW-2. As per the evidence of RW-2 he did not receive any injuries in the accident. If that is so, he could have as well lodged the F.I.R. with the police stating that the accident took place solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, but he did not do so. On the other hand, the F.I.R. was lodged by one Shaik Basha Mohaddin, who was one of the persons traveling along with the deceased in the said car while returning from Mahanadu held at Warangal. In the said F.I.R. it is mentioned that among other persons, PW-2 was also traveling in the car. Therefore, the presence of PW-2 was mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by Basha Mohaddin at the earliest point of time. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is also justified in rejecting the evidence of RW-2. As already mentioned, none of the parties examined the investigating officer to ascertain as to how ultimately the car driver was charge sheeted for the offence alleged. In any event, either the contents of the F.I.R. or the contents of the charge sheet, may be a piece of evidence relevant for considering the cause of accident along with other aspects, they by themselves cannot establish the factum of accident occurred. Further there is no substantial reason to deny the evidence of PW-2 the eyewitness who in fact was traveling along with the deceased at material time. Therefore, credence has to be given to the evidence of PW-2 while deciding the issue as to how the accident did in fact take place. The learned Tribunal rightly relied upon the evidence of PW-2 and it's finding that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, is perfectly justified and needs no interference in these appeals. Therefore, credence has to be given to the evidence of PW-2 while deciding the issue as to how the accident did in fact take place. The learned Tribunal rightly relied upon the evidence of PW-2 and it's finding that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, is perfectly justified and needs no interference in these appeals. However, in my considered view, there was absolutely no basis for the learned Tribunal to fasten liability of 25% : 75% on the drivers of tractor and car respectively and ultimately holding respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) jointly and severally liable to pay 25% of the compensation awarded and the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) to pay the remaining 75% of compensation. The accident occurred on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2002 at about 2.30 a.m. The learned Tribunal below relied on the evidence of PW-2 who claimed to be the eyewitness to the accident traveling along with the deceased at relevant time. There was no criteria for the learned Tribunal to apportion the negligence at 25% : 75% and in the absence thereof, it could have been proper for the Tribunal to hold that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally at fault in causing the accident and ought to have apportioned the liability at 50% each on respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) on one side and the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) on the other to satisfy the claim arising out of the accident. The finding of the learned Tribunal is therefore modified and in these appeals it is held that the respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation and the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) the remaining 50%. Another important question requires consideration in this context is whether the Oriental Insurance Company, the appellant in MACMA No.3600 of 2005 is liable to indemnify the owner of the Car bearing No. APD-1837 to the extent of the liability of 50% of the compensation awarded. Admittedly, the car was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company on the date of the accident. Admittedly, the car was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company on the date of the accident. It is the contention of the claimants that since the policy taken by the insured is 'Act only policy', the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the occupants of the car. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that since the policy is 'an Act policy', the phrase 'any person' under an Act policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act includes even a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The said finding is assailed by the Oriental Insurance Company. It is has been contended on its behalf that the vehicle was registered and insured as a private car and as such even under an Act policy, the inmates of the car are not covered and the Oriental Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. From the language of Section 147 of the Act, it can be understood that the intention of the Legislature is only to cover the risk of third parties under the Act. The expression 'any person' used in Section 147 does not include the owner of the vehicle or a gratuitous passenger. It is not the mandate of Section 147 that the Act policy shall include the risk of the owner or any other persons who are being carried in the vehicle with the permission of the owner. However, the insurance company may enter into a contract with the insured even to cover the risk of the owner or driver of the vehicle or the inmates of the car by collecting the additional premium from the owner for the said purpose, thereby widening the scope of statutory contract. in such an event if the owner pays extra premium to cover any such risk, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner to the said extent. But, it is strictly in accordance with the terms of contract entered into between the insured and the insurer. It is not even obligatory on the part of the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured at least under an Act policy. It is therefore, obvious that even if the policy is Act only policy, it does not cover the risk of the owner, driver or any other inmates of the car. It is not even obligatory on the part of the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured at least under an Act policy. It is therefore, obvious that even if the policy is Act only policy, it does not cover the risk of the owner, driver or any other inmates of the car. However, to cover the risk of any such persons, the owner and the insurance company are not prohibited to extend the terms of contract when the owner of the vehicle pays extra premium to cover such risk. Therefore, unless and until the liability arises either under Section 147 of the Act or under the terms of contract of insurance, the risk of the owner or any gratuitous passenger traveling in the vehicle of the owner is not covered merely because it is an Act policy. Thus, in the instant case, the risk of the deceased who is a gratuitous passenger is not covered by virtue of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act and as could be seen from Ex.B-1 policy, no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of the inmates of the car by the owner of the vehicle and as such, the insurance company, 4th respondent before the Tribunal is not liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased on account of his death in the accident. Therefore, in the present case, the third respondent, owner of the car bearing No.APD-1837 alone is liable to pay 50% of the compensation awarded to the claimants and the respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining 50% of compensation to the claimants. The 4th respondent before the Tribunal i.e. the appellant in MACMA No.3600 of 2005 is exonerated from the liability to pay any compensation. POINTS 2 AND 3: There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was aged 40 years and was a ZPTC member at the time of his death. It is also not in dispute that he was drawing honorarium of Rs.1500/-per month. From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, it is made out that the deceased was a partner in some business concerns and that he was getting only a meager income from various kinds of business he was doing. It is also not in dispute that he was drawing honorarium of Rs.1500/-per month. From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, it is made out that the deceased was a partner in some business concerns and that he was getting only a meager income from various kinds of business he was doing. The evidence on record indicated that the deceased was possessing some agricultural land but since the passbooks were not filed, the actual extent owned by the deceased could not be known. The learned Tribunal, in my view, rightly rejected Exs.A-19 and A-20 income tax challans for the year 2001-02 on the ground that the authorities concerned mentioned therein that both are new cases. Absolutely there was no other evidence except Exs.A-19 and A-20 indicating that the deceased was an income tax assessee. Therefore, it can be understood that these two documents were pressed into service only to claim more compensation. Even though some documents were filed before the learned Tribunal to prove the income of the deceased and also to prove the extent of agricultural land he owned, they did not throw much light as to the actual income or as to the actual extent of the land held by the deceased. However, from the said documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, it can be understood that the deceased was doing some business and was also an agriculturist. Insofar as the agricultural land is concerned, the loss on account of the death of the deceased can be considered only as supervisory loss since the entire land would remain with the claimants. Further, the honorarium which the deceased was getting was only a temporary one which is attached to the political post held by him and it cannot be said to be a permanent income and the learned Tribunal rightly did not take into consideration the said income. However, the learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased from agriculture at Rs.8,000/-per month which is on higher side and the income from the business at Rs.3,000/-per month for which also there is no convincing evidence. Considering the entire material available on record, we are of the opinion that the agricultural income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month and the income from business source can be fixed at Rs.2,000/-per month. Considering the entire material available on record, we are of the opinion that the agricultural income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month and the income from business source can be fixed at Rs.2,000/-per month. The total income of the deceased per month for the purpose of computing compensation can be considered at Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.11,000/-per month which was taken by the learned Tribunal. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.7,000/- x 12 = Rs.84,000/-. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased and the contribution to the family comes to Rs.56,000/-. This amount has to be capitalized with multiplier 15 which is relevant to the age of the deceased as per the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which comes to Rs.56,000/-x 15 = Rs.8,40,000/-. This apart, the first claimant who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and a further sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,60,000/-. The interest granted @ 9% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. In the result, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,60,000/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of total compensation awarded and the 3rd respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) is liable to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation. The 4th respondent-O.I.C. (in O.P.No.438 of 2002 and the appellant in MACMA No.3600 of 2005) is exonerated from the liability to pay any compensation. Both the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.