JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 1st May, 2006 passed by MACT, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 26/2005 whereby in a claim petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 compensation of Rs. 25,35,000/-was awarded, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Cross-objection has also been filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 wherein it is prayed that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and the same be enhanced. 3. Short facts giving rise to the present case are that deceased GS. Poras who was husband of Respondent No. 1 and father of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 was posted as Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur. It was alleged that on 26th October, 2004 deceased GS. Poras was going from Gwalior to Mandsaur by Qualis bearing registration No. MP/03-06-6043. It was alleged that at the relevant time the offending truck bearing registration No. UP/75-E/9541 was coming from opposite direction which was driven and owned by Respondent No. 4 and was insured with Respondent No. 5. It was alleged that the offending truck was being driven by Respondent No. 4 rashly and negligently, therefore, the accident took place in which GS. Poras and two other persons died on spot. It was alleged that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 4, therefore, claim petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be allowed and compensation be awarded. 4. The claim petition was contested by the Respondent No. 5 also by the Appellant. The stand of Appellant was that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of Respondent No. 4. It was alleged that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 4, therefore, it is only Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 who are liable for payment of compensation. Separate written statement was filed by Respondent No. 5 wherein it was alleged that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver who was driving the Qualis. It was alleged that since the Qualis was owned by the Appellants, therefore, Appellants are liable for payment of compensation. 5. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation of Rs. It was alleged that since the Qualis was owned by the Appellants, therefore, Appellants are liable for payment of compensation. 5. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation of Rs. 25,35,000/- holding that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, therefore, owner of the Qualis and Insurance Company of the truck are equally liable for payment of compensation. Being aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal whereby Appellants were held equally liable for payment of compensation alongwith Insurance Company, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned award so far as it relates to equal liability of payment of compensation is concerned, is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in holding the Appellants equally liable for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on spot map Ext. D/1 and the statement of PW/2 Harishankar and PW/4 Lalaram. It is submitted that both the witnesses were present on spot and as per their version the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of truck driver. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award so far as it relates to finding relating to liability of the Appellants be set aside. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submit that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the net income of the deceased, while gross income ought to have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that the cross objection filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 submits that it was the offending Qualis which was owned by the Appellants, was at fault, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in holding the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 equally liable for payment of compensation alongwith Appellants. 1 to 3 be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 submits that it was the offending Qualis which was owned by the Appellants, was at fault, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in holding the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 equally liable for payment of compensation alongwith Appellants. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal be dismissed and the Insurance Company be exonerated from payment of compensation. 9. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the spot map and also the statement of witnesses, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned Tribunal are based on due appreciation of evidence, which requires no interference. 10. So tar as cross-objection filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is concerned, this Court finds that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, which requires no interference. Hence, appeal filed by the Appellant cross-objection filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stand dismissed. No order as to costs.