JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J (Oral) - This appeal has been filed by the driver and the owner of the tem o challenging that part of the Award whereby the Tribunal held that it was a case of composite negligence of both the drivers of the truck as well as the tem o, and consequently held both the vehicle owners as well as their drivers along with the Insurance Com any liable jointly and severally to say the compensation awarded. 2. Brief facts are that on 6.12.1989 at about noon time, Ram Chari and Hawa Singh were going from Soni at towards village Chitana in the tem o in question being driven by Wazir Singh and when this tem o was near village Barwasini from Gohana side, the truck in question being driven by Nand Lal struck against the tem o and as a result of this accident, both Ram Dhari and Hawa Singh died due to receipt of injuries. After the trial, the Tribunal, as stated above, held that it was a case of composite negligence of both the drivers, and awarded the compensation. 3. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has passed the Award on the basis of conjectures and surmises and has misconstrued the evidence on the record. It has misread the statements of W4-Balwant Singh and W6-Ramesh. As per him, while analyzing the evidence on record, the Tribunal made contradictory observations. 4. Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the testimony of W4 and W6. I find that the Tribunal has selectively used the testimony of Balwant Singh in coming to the conclusion that the tem o driver was also negligent. The Tribunal has noticed a part of the statement where Balwant Singh said that the tem o driver was also driving the tem o fast but it has ignored the statement where he said that on his asking the driver slowed its speed. It has also gone on to ignore that part of the statement where Balwant Singh said that the tem o was on its correct side. The Tribunal also ignored the fact that the truck was over loaded. It has also ignored the fact that the truck after striking the right side rear wheel of the tem o turned turtle. 5. It has also gone on to ignore that part of the statement where Balwant Singh said that the tem o was on its correct side. The Tribunal also ignored the fact that the truck was over loaded. It has also ignored the fact that the truck after striking the right side rear wheel of the tem o turned turtle. 5. Counsel for the Insurance Com any is not in a osition to rebut the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants. 6. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the finding of composite negligence was wrong and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal holding the appellants liable to pay the compensation amount is set aside. 7. Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.Ms, if any, also stand disposed of.