JUDGMENT ( 1. ) AN equity which has been interred in fathom down for getting monetary benefits is being disinterred and also winched to the fore by way of filing these legal proceedings. ( 2. ) THE respondents 1 and 2 in CMA.No.2104 of 2000, first respondent in CMA.No.20 of 2001 and first respondent in CRP.No.2723 of 2001 as petitioners have filed MCOP.Nos.293 of 1996, 1394 of 1997 and 1421 of 1997 under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai praying to pass awards of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively wherein the present appellant/revision petitioner has been shown as one of the respondents. It is averred in the petition filed in MCOP.No.293 of 1996 that on 21.05.1994 at about 7.30 am, the deceased Thirumoorthi has travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 from Madurai to Melur. Near Vellaripatti the driver of the said bus has driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 which has been driven from opposite direction. Due to accident, the said Thirumoorthi has passed away instantaneously. The bus which caused the accident belongs to the second respondent and the same has been insured with the third respondent. The bus which has been driven from opposite direction belongs to the first respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein. ( 3. ) IN the petition filed in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 it is averred that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 at about 7.30 am. Due to accident, the petitioner and her minor daughter by name Sarala have sustained injuries. The accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein. ( 4. ) IN the petition filed in MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 it is averred that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-59-C-5853 and at the time of accident, the petitioner has travelled in the said bus and due to accident she sustained injury. ( 4. ) IN the petition filed in MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 it is averred that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-59-C-5853 and at the time of accident, the petitioner has travelled in the said bus and due to accident she sustained injury. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. On the side of the appellant/revision petitioner/contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai) a detailed counter has been filed in all the petitions, wherein it has been clearly stated that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 which has been driven from opposite direction and therefore, appellant/revision petitioner /contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai) is not liable to pay compensations as claimed in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. ( 5. ) ON the basis of the rival evidence adduced on either side, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in MCOP.No.293 of 1996, Rs.36,000/- in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 and Rs.7,000/- in MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 and the same should be paid by the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN- 59-C-5853 and appellant /revision petitioner/contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai /Madurai). Against the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition have been preferred at the instance of the contesting respondent/United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai. ( 6. ) THE consistent case of the petitioners is that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 at about 7.30 am. At the time of accident the deceased Thirumoorthy and the petitioners in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 and 1421 of 1997 have travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the said bus has dashed against the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 which has been driven from opposite side and due to that, the accident has happened. The contention urged on the side of the appellant/revision petitioner/contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai) is that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and the same has been happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355. ( 7. ) ON the basis of the rival contentions as well as available evidence on record, the Motor Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has found that the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and accordingly passed the compensations as mentioned supra. ( 8. ) THE only point that now winched to the fore in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision petition is as to whether the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN- 59-C-5853 as alleged on the side of the petitioners in original petitions or the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 which has been driven from opposite side. The formidable argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/civil revision petitioner is that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994. At the time of accident the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 has been driven from west to east and at the same time the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 has been driven from east to west and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA.2355 the entire accident has taken place. But the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has erroneously fixed liability upon the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and also upon the appellant/revision petitioner and the same is against Ex.R1. Under the said circumstances the awards passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai are liable to be interfered with. ( 9. But the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has erroneously fixed liability upon the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and also upon the appellant/revision petitioner and the same is against Ex.R1. Under the said circumstances the awards passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai are liable to be interfered with. ( 9. ) IN order to remonstrate the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revision petitioner the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/petitioners in original petitions has advanced his reiterative argument stating that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 and at the time of accident the deceased Thirumoorthi and the petitioners is MCOP.Nos.1394 of 1997 and MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 have travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN- 59-C-5853 and the same has been insured with the appellant/revision petitioner and only due to rash and negligent driving of its driver the entire accident has happened and the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side has rightly fixed liability as mentioned in the awards and therefore, the awards passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai are not liable to be interfered with. ( 10. ) BASING upon the rival submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into the point which has already been formulated for consideration. The entire argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revision petitioner is based upon Ex.R1 and the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/petitioners in original petitions is based upon the oral evidence adduced on their side. In fact, on the side of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 have been examined. The petitioner in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 by name Amirthavalli has been examined as PW2. She would say in her evidence that at the time of accident, she travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and only due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the entire accident has happened. ( 11. ) THE Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has given complete credence to the evidence of PW2 and consequently fixed liability upon the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and its insurer viz., the present appellant/revision petitioner. ( 12. ( 11. ) THE Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has given complete credence to the evidence of PW2 and consequently fixed liability upon the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and its insurer viz., the present appellant/revision petitioner. ( 12. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/petitioners in original petitions has repeatedly contended that on the side of the petitioners unassailable and also unimpeachable evidence has been adduced so as to prove that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN- 59-C-5853 and in order to controvert or rebut the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners, no evidence has been adduced on the side of the contesting respondent. Under the said circumstances the finding of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai with regard to liability is perfectly correct and the same need not be assailed. As adverted to earlier, the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revision petitioner is based upon Ex.R1. Ex.R1 is nothing but a sketch which shows the juxtaposition of the place of accident. Of course it is true that in order to controvert the oral evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners with regard to manner of accident, no oral evidence has been adduced on the side of the appellant/revision petitioner. At this juncture, it would be apropos to analyse as to whether even in the absence of oral evidence, Ex.R1 can be looked into and also relied upon. ( 13. ) IT would be condign to quote the relevant provision of section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) and the same reads as follows: "Evidence".- "Evidence" means and includes.- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court] such documents are called documentary evidence. "Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. ( 14. "Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. ( 14. ) FROM a cursory look of the said provision, it is easily discernible that evidence means both oral and documentary evidence and a fact is said to be proved if the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable. In the instant case as pointed out earlier, on the side of the petitioners replete oral evidence has been adduced so as to prove the manner of accident and the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has believed the same and ultimately fixed responsibility as well as liability as mentioned in so many places. But the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has failed to consider Ex.R1. At this juncture, a novel attempt has been made on the side of the contesting respondents/petitioners in original petitions to the effect that Ex.R1 has been prepared due to political intervention so as to disallow the legitimate claims of the petitioners. Ex.R1 has been prepared by the concerned police officer who initiated and conducted investigation with regard to accident happened on 21.05.1994. Since Ex.R1 has been prepared by the concerned Investigation Officer during the course of his investigation, the Court cannot belittle the same. Under the said circumstances the Court can very well rely upon Ex.R1. ( 15. ) IN Ex.R1 it has been vividly described that the bus bearing Registration No.TN.59-C-5853 has been driven from Madurai to Melur and the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 has been driven from Melur to Madurai. The consistent case of the petitioners in all the petitions is that the entire accident has taken place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853. But in Ex.R1 it is seen that the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 has been driven in the middle of the road and the same has been shown in a slanting position. Likewise, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 has also been shown in the same position. But in Ex.R1 it is seen that the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 has been driven in the middle of the road and the same has been shown in a slanting position. Likewise, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 has also been shown in the same position. Under the said circumstances the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the accident in question has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both buses. But the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has erroneously come to a conclusion that the entire accident has taken place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN- 59-C-5853 simply on the basis of oral evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Second Additional District Court, Madurai has virtually failed to consider Ex.R1. ( 16. ) IT has already been pointed out that as per section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, "Evidence" means both oral and documentary evidence and a fact is said to be proved if the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable. Further it is mentioned that "proved" means a man of ordinary prudence on the basis of circumstances of particular case, could consider, existence of a particular fact. In the instant case, in Ex.R1 it has been vividly described that the accident has happened due to head-on-collision of both the buses and therefore, there is no incertitude in coming to a conclusion that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both buses. Since the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both buses, liability can be apportioned equally. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Second Additional District Court, Madurai has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in MCOP.No.293 of 1996, Rs.36,000/- in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 and Rs.7,000/- in MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 by way of compensations. It has already been discussed in detail that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both buses and liability can be apportioned equally. Under the said circumstances the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai should be equally apportioned by the owners of the buses bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and TMA.No.2355. Under the said circumstances the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai should be equally apportioned by the owners of the buses bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and TMA.No.2355. In MCOP.No. 293 of 1996 the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 has been impleaded as first respondent. In other petitions he has not been impleaded. Likewise, the insurer of the said bus has also not been impleaded. It has already been pointed out that liability can be apportioned equally between the two owners of the buses involved in the accident. Under the said circumstances, the appellant/revision petitioner is liable to pay only 50% of the compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and remaining 50% should be paid by the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has not touched the quantum of compensations fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai and therefore, in the light of the discussion made earlier, it is needless to say that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revision petitioner is having merit and whereas, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents /petitioners in original petitions is of no use and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision petition are liable to be allowed in part. ( 17. ) IN fine, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition are allowed in part without cost and the amounts fixed in awards are confirmed and the liability fixed thereon is modified as follows: The appellant/revision petitioner is liable to pay only 50% of the award amounts and its interest on behalf of the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853. The remaining 50% of the award amount and its interest should be paid by the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 (first respondent in MCOP.No.293 of 1996). Since the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in MCOP.Nos.1394 of 1997 and 1421 of 1997, the latter clause of the order cannot be executed by the petitioners therein. At the most, the latter clause of the order can be executed only in respect of MCOP.No.293 of 1996.