Judgment :- 1. All these three appeals by the Insurer are directed against the common judgment and award dated 11th July 2006, passed in M.V.C. Nos. 2862/2005, 2861/2005 & 2860/2005 respectively by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20), (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. The facts in brief are that, claimants in M.V.C.No.2862/2005 are the mother and younger sister of deceased Fazil Pasha, claimants in M.V.C.No.2861/2005 are parents and younger sister of deceased Suhail Ahmed and claimants in M.V.C.No.2860/2005 are the parents of deceased Mohd. Sadiq. All of the claimants filed their individual claim petitions under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.14,74,000/- Rs.9,94,000/- and Rs.20,86,000/- respectively, contending that at about 3:15 A.M, on 18-08-2004, all the three deceased persons met with an accident, within the limits of Rapthadue Police Station, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-39/LC-6970. Due to the impact, the deceased persons fell down and sustained grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the same. 3. On account of the death of the deceased persons, all the respective claimants filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal, seeking compensation as stated above against the Insurer and owner of both the vehicles. The said claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 11th July 2006. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed all the claim petitions, in part, awarding a sum of Rs.3,08,000/-, Rs.1,42,000/- and Rs.2,98,000/-respectively, under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition will the date of deposit, fixing negligence in the ratio of 50:50 on the part of the driver of the Car and the driver of the Lorry. But, in the operative portion, dismissed the petitions against the owner and Insurer of the Car and directed the appellant herein/Insurer of the Lorry alone to indemnify the entire compensation awarded in all the three claim petitions. Being aggrieved by the 50% liability fastened on it, the Insurer has filed these three appeals before this Court, seeking to set aside the contributory negligence fixed at 50% on the part of the appellant/Insurer of the Lorry. 4. Being aggrieved by the 50% liability fastened on it, the Insurer has filed these three appeals before this Court, seeking to set aside the contributory negligence fixed at 50% on the part of the appellant/Insurer of the Lorry. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for Insurer in all the three appeals and the learned counsel for claimants, for considerable length of time. 5. Shri. A.K. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Insurer in all the three appeals submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry for the reason that the contents of the FIR shows that on the basis of the complaint presented by the complainants, police have registered a case against the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454 for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and after final report shows that after investigation, police having filed abate charge sheet against the driver of the Car for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Further, he submits that even as per sketch also, the accident has occurred entirely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Car and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability on the driver/owner/Insurer of the Car. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be set aside, in so far as fixing 50% negligence fixing on the appellant is concerned. 6. Further, the learned counsel appearing for Insurer submits that the Tribunal also grossly erred in dismissing the claim petitions against the owner and Insurer of the Car (Respondents 1 and 2 before Tribunal) and directing the appellant/Insurer of the Lorry alone to indemnify the award, after having come to the conclusion that both the driver of the Car and the driver of the Lorry have contributed their negligence at 50% each to the cause of accident in question. Therefore, he submits that the said aspect is also liable to be modified. 7. Therefore, he submits that the said aspect is also liable to be modified. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurer and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs.3,08,000/-, Rs.1,42,000/- and Rs.2,98,000/-respectively, under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on account of the untimely death of the deceased persons and also fixing negligence in the ratio of 50:50 on the part of the driver of the Car and the driver of the Lorry. 8. After carefully perusing the reasoning and the discussion recorded by Tribunal at paragraph 14, it can be seen that the Tribunal has observed that the owners and Insurers have not produced oral evidence of the Driver of the Lorry Bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970. The undisputed evidence shows that during dark nigh on NH-7, in a nonresidential area, a collision took placed between a parked Lorry and a moving Car resulting in the death of the occupants of the Car. PWs 4 and 5 are the two persons, who have not witnessed the occurrence of the accident. As per the Sketch, the Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 was parked on the western portion of the North-South road facing towards South, i.e. on the wrong portion of the road. The sketch further shows that the Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454 which was proceeding from South towards North, dashed to a Lorry which was parked facing towards South on the western portion of North-South Road. If the driver of the Lorry had parked the same beyond the tar road, i.e. on the left portion of the North-South road, i.e. on the eastern portion of the tar road, accident would not have taken place. In the same way, if the driver of the Car had driven the same cautiously and carefully, he also could have avoided the occurrence of the accident. In the same way, if the driver of the Car had driven the same cautiously and carefully, he also could have avoided the occurrence of the accident. In view of non-availability of oral evidence of either the eye witnesses or the investigating officers, or the driver of the Lorry on the basis of the undisputed contents of the sketch, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to the negligent parking of the Lorry on the wrong portion of the road and also negligent driving by driver of the Car, the accident took place and held that the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 and the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454 have contributed negligence in the ratio of 50:50 in the occurrence of accident and in view of the same, held that the Insurers of the said vehicles, namely Car and Lorry are equally liable to indemnify the award in all the claim petitions. The said reasoning given by Tribunal is after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file. Hence, we do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the said finding of fact recorded by Tribunal. 9. However, after careful perusal of the impugned judgment passed by Tribunal, it is noticed that, the Tribunal, having held that the driver of Car as well as driver of Lorry contributed equally to the occurrence of road traffic accident at 50% each, resulting in the death of deceased persons, has grossly erred in dismissing the claim petitions as against Respondents 1 and 2 therein, i.e. owner and Insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454 and directing the appellant/Insurer of Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 alone to indemnify the entire award in all the claim petitions. The said contradiction cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be modified accordingly. 10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Tribunal is justified in fixing contributory negligence at 50% each on the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454 and the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 and fastening liability equally on the Insurer of the said vehicles. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 11. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 11. However, as discussed above, in the operative portion of the judgment of the Tribunal, in the order portion, item No.5, stating that “these petitions with respect to Respondents No.1 and 2 are rejected”. Is liable to be set aside and item No.7, stating that “Respondent No.4 being the Insurer of the Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 shall deposit the compensation amount within three months from today” is liable to be modified. 12. In the light of the discussion made above and for the reasons stated above, all the appeals filed by the appellant/Insurer are disposed of. The common judgment and award dated 11th July 2006, passed in M.V.C. Nos. 2862/ 2005, 2861/2005 & 2860/2005 respectively by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, is hereby modified, by fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454 and on the part of the Driver of the Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 in the ratio of 50:50; The Insurers of both the vehicles, i.e. Respondent No.1 (Insurer of Car bearing No.KA-05/Z-2454) and appellant herein (Respondent No.4 before the Tribunal & Insurer of Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970) are hereby directed to indemnify the compensation awarded by Tribunal in all the claim petitions in the ratio of 50:50 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; Item No.5 in the order portion, dismissing the claim petitions against Respondents 1 and 2 is hereby set aside; Item No.7, directing only the Respondent No.4 – Insurer of Lorry bearing No.TN-39/LC-6970 to deposit the compensation amount is modified as above; All other portion of the judgment and order passed by Tribunal remain intact; The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer in all the three appeals shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.