JUDGMENT 1. M/s Chandra and Shekar has filed power for R4 in MFA No. 4310/2007 and the same is taken on record. 2. Though these matters are posted for admission by consent of parties, the appeals are heard finally. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed MFA No. 4310/2007, Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in MFA No. 2624/2007. Both the Insurance Companies are challenging the liability saddled on them on the ground that the accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles insured respectively by each of the appellants. In MFA No.2624/2007 the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is also challenged. 4. The facts leading to these cases are as here under: The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the claimants before the MACT. One late John Ivon Fernandis died in a road traffic accident occurred on 01.03.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. On that day, deceased John Ivon Fernandis was riding his Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-15/E-2347 from Jog to Sagar. When he was near L.B. College in front of house of one Sreenivasa Rao, a tempo trax bearing No. CAB 4664-which was coming from Sagar side in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Motor Cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased as well as the pillion rider one G.M.Parameshwar fell on the road. Behid the motor cycle Bus bearing NO. KA-14/7821 was also proceeding in the same direction. On account of the sudden fall of the deceased on the road the bus driver could not control its speed immediately and the bus ran over the body of the deceased and he succumbed injuries on the spot. Therefore the claim petition was lodged. 5. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by each of the companies that the accident was occurred due to the rash driving of both the insured vehicles. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 13,69,000/-as compensation. However, the liability was fixed equally on both the insurance companies. Therefore, these two appeals are preferred by both the companies to set aside the liability fastened on them. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Sri. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 13,69,000/-as compensation. However, the liability was fixed equally on both the insurance companies. Therefore, these two appeals are preferred by both the companies to set aside the liability fastened on them. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Sri. A Ravishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which had covered the risk of bus in question contends that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He further contends that having regard to the findings of the tribunal on the question of negligence; in the claim petition lodged by the pillion rider G.M. Parameshwar, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, he contends that the liability fastened equally on both the Insurance companies in the present case has to be set aside. According to him the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo trax which dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, due to the said impact, the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle fell on the road and the bus which was following the motor cycle ran over the deceased. According to him, if the tempo trax driver had driven the vehicle properly and if he had not caused the accident, there was no occasion for the bus running over the deceased. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company contends that even though the liability is saddled in entirety in respect of the claim of the pillion rider as the bus in question had not touched the pillion rider, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has satisfied the award. According to him the same cannot be a ground to hold that the driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus. In the circumstance, he requests to allow this appeal and dismiss the appeal of the United Insurance Company Limited. He further contends that charge sheet is also filed against the driver of tempo trax and the bus. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal. 9. In the circumstance, he requests to allow this appeal and dismiss the appeal of the United Insurance Company Limited. He further contends that charge sheet is also filed against the driver of tempo trax and the bus. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered in these two appeals is: “Whether the tribunal is justified in fixing the liability equally on both the Insurance Companies or not?”. 10. The facts of this case are not in dispute to following extent. It is not in disputes that the deceased was proceedings from Jog towards Sagar. The tempo trax was proceeding from Sagar towards Jog in the opposite direction. The bus was also proceedings behind the motor cycle in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that on account of the negligence of the driver of the tempo trax dashed against the motor cycle which was ridden by the deceased. The deceased and pillion rider fell on the road, bus which was proceedings in the same direction behind the motor cycle ran over the body of the deceased. Therefore, what is to be considered in this case is, whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo trax or on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 11. The accident was caused by the tempo trax is not at all in dispute. When the deceased fell on the road, the bus ran over him, in other words if the temp trax had not hit the motor cycle there was no occasion for the deceased to fall on the road and in which event the bus could not have ran over the deceased. Therefore, cause of accident is only on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the tempo trax. It is not doubt true that bus has also ran over the deceased but considering the distance between the motor cycle and the bus, if suddenly the deceased fell on the road on account of the accident caused by the tempo trax it is difficult for the driver of the bus to stop the vehicle forthwith and in such circumstances, this Court cannot find fault with the driver of the bus, 12. In addition to that, in a connected petition filed by the pillion rider both the Insurance Companies were made as parties to the proceedings. In the said case, the liability has been saddled in entirely on the Insurance Company of the tempo trax and the said Insurance Company has satisfied the award. Therefore, there cannot be any two difference findings in respect of one accident. We are of the view that the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited has to be allowed and the appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited ahs to be dismissed holding the entire award has to be satisfied by the appellant in MFA No. 2624/2007. 13. In the result, MFA No. 4310/2007 is allowed and MFA No. 2624/2007 dismissed. The judgment and award passed in MFA No. 54/2003 dated 02.11.2006 passed by the MACT, Sagar is hereby modified holding that the holder that the owner of the tempo trax and M/s Oriental Insurance company Limited have to satisfy the entire award. Amount, if any in deposit in MFA No. 4310/2007 is ordered to be refunded to the appellant Amount, if any to deposit in MFA No. 2624/2007 is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned MACT.