JUDGMENT R. Subramanian, J. The challenge in all these appeals is to the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal District Judge, Perambalur, by the Insurance Company, which suffered an award for payment of Rs. 18,95,000 in MCOP No.513 of 2011 for the death of one Marimuthu, a sum of Rs. 5,93,000/- for the death of one Natarajan in MCOP No.525 of 2011, a sum of Rs. 5,33,000/- for the death of one Suseela in MCOP No.526 of 2011, a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the death of one Sankamirtham in MCOP No.527 of 2011 and a sum of Rs. 6,18,000/- for the injuries caused to one Venkatachalam in MCOP No.528 of 2011 in the motor accident that occurred on 27.04.2011. 2. According to the claimants, the deceased as well as the injured persons were travelling in the Tourist Car bearing Registration No.TN 51 F 5242, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the Chennai-Trichy Highway. At about 4.15 a.m. when the car was nearing Mangalamedu, the driver of the car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Multi Axle Goods Vehicle/Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 05 U 5725 from behind resulting in death and injuries to the passengers of the car. Contending that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver as evidenced by the complaint lodged by the driver of the lorry, based on which, an FIR also came to be registered with the Mangalamedu Police Station in FIR No.151 of 2011, the claimants sought for the following amounts as compensation. MCOP No. Details Amount claimed Amount Awarded (Interest at 7.5% per annum) 513 of 2011 Claimed by LR's for the the Death of Marimuthu Rs.50,00,000/- Rs.18,95,000/- 525 of 2011 Claimed by LR's for the Death of Natarajan Rs.20,00,000/- Rs. 5,93,000/- 526 of 2011 Claimed by LR's for the Death of Suseela Rs. 8,00,000/- Rs. 5,33,000/- 527 of 2011 Claimed by LR's for the Death of Sankamirtham Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 2,60,000/- 528 of 2011 Injury case claimed by the injured Rs.15,00,000/- Rs. 6,18,000/- 3. The said Claim Petitions were resisted by the appellant Insurance Company/ Insurer of the Car, contending that the accident did not happen due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car alone. 5,00,000/- Rs. 2,60,000/- 528 of 2011 Injury case claimed by the injured Rs.15,00,000/- Rs. 6,18,000/- 3. The said Claim Petitions were resisted by the appellant Insurance Company/ Insurer of the Car, contending that the accident did not happen due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car alone. It was claimed that the lorry, which was carrying Iron rods and plates, suddenly stopped to the middle of the road, resulting in the accident. The Insurance Company also contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive and denied the age and income particulars of the deceased persons as well as the injured. 4. The Tribunal which heard the Original Petition on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that it was the negligence of the car driver which caused the accident. To come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 one Venkatachalam, the claimant in MCOP No.528 of 2011 who was a passenger in the car. The Tribunal also relied upon the fact that an FIR was lodged against the car driver at the instance of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of R.W.1 Balamurugan driver of the car. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that none of the passengers of the car chose to lodge a complaint against the driver of the lorry. 5. On the quantum: 5.1. Insofar as the deceased Marimuthu (MCOP No.513/11) is concerned the Tribunal took his income at Rs. 18,000/- and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal calculated the monthly dependency at Rs. 12,000/-, applying a multiplier of 14, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs. 20,16,000/-, after deducting 10% towards Income Tax, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,15,000/- as loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,95,000/- 5.2. Insofar as the death of Natarajan (MCOP No.525/11), the Tribunal took his income at Rs. 6,000/- after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 5,28,000/- applying the multiplier of 11. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,95,000/- 5.2. Insofar as the death of Natarajan (MCOP No.525/11), the Tribunal took his income at Rs. 6,000/- after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 5,28,000/- applying the multiplier of 11. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,93,000/- as compensation. 5.3. As regards the death of Suseela (MCOP No.526/2011), considering her age and avocation, the Tribunal took her income at Rs. 4,500/- after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 3,000/- adopting a multiplier of 13, the Tribunal arrived at pecuniary loss at Rs. 4,68,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,33,000/-. 5.4. Insofar as the death of Sankamirtham (MCOP No.527/2011) is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs. 4,500/- after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, took Rs. 3,000/- as the monthly loss of dependency, applying a multiplier of 5, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation. 5.5. As regards the injuries caused to one Venkatachalam (MCOP No.528/2011), the Tribunal from the Accident Register, the Wound certificate and the Discharge Certificate, which were filed as Exs.P17, P18 and P19 concluded that the disability would be 40%. The Tribunal also concluded that the disability has not impaired the earning power of the claimant. On the said conclusion, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,18,374/- for medical expenses, permanent disability and on other heads. 6. The claimants have accepted the award. The insurer of the car, namely the 1st respondent in the Claim Petition has come forward with these appeals. 7. On the said conclusion, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,18,374/- for medical expenses, permanent disability and on other heads. 6. The claimants have accepted the award. The insurer of the car, namely the 1st respondent in the Claim Petition has come forward with these appeals. 7. We have heard Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.M.B.Gopalan & Associates, for the appellant Insurance Company, Mr.T.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 5/claimant and Mr.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent namely insurer of the lorry. Respondents 7, 8 & 9 though served are not appearing either in person or through counsel. 8. Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the entire negligence on the driver of the car. He would further contend that the Tribunal was in error in not accepting the evidence of R.W.1, who is the driver of the car. He would submit that the Tribunal should have at least fixed the quantum of contribution by each of the drivers of two vehicles, namely the car and the Multi Axle Lorry, based on the evidence that was available. 9. Pointing out that the evidence of P.W.2 is not consistent enough to conclude that the driver of the car alone was negligent and it is such negligence on the part of the driver of the car that contributed to the accident, he would also point out that P.W.2, the passenger, namely Venkatachalam, the injured claimant in MOCP No.528 of 2011, had in fact deposed that he was sleeping when the accident occurred. 10. The learned counsel would also fault the Tribunal for having allowed the 4th respondent Insurance Company to cross examine P.W.2, after the cross-examination by the appellant Insurance Company. The learned counsel would point out that the well established procedure for the order of Cross examination of witnesses has been breached by the Tribunal. Pointing out that, insofar as the manner in which the accident happened, the claimants and the 4th respondent were sailing together. Therefore, the 4th respondent should not have been allowed to cross examine P.W.2 after completion of cross-examination by the appellant Insurance Company. 11. Pointing out that, insofar as the manner in which the accident happened, the claimants and the 4th respondent were sailing together. Therefore, the 4th respondent should not have been allowed to cross examine P.W.2 after completion of cross-examination by the appellant Insurance Company. 11. The learned counsel would also further contend that P.W.2 had in fact during the cross examination by the appellant Insurance Company had admitted that he was asleep when the accident took place and he woke up only after he heard the noise. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.2, cannot be relied upon to show that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car. 12. Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company does not dispute the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, namely respondents 1 to 5 in CMA No.622 of 2015, respondents 1 to 3 in CMA Nos.623, 624 of 2015, respondents 1 to 6 in CMA 625 of 2015, sole respondent in CMA No.626 of 2015, would submit that the fact that an FIR was lodged against the driver of the car immediately after the accident by the driver of the lorry coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 would demonstrate that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 14. Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent Insurance Company, namely the insurer of the lorry would contend that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the car alone was negligent inasmuch as one of the passengers of the car had deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 15. We have considered the rival submissions. 16. From the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the only question that arises in this appeal is as to the apportionment of the negligence between the two vehicles, namely the car and the lorry involved in the accident. It is not a case where the lorry was a stationery vehicle. Both the vehicles were moving in the same direction and the driver of the car had come from behind and dashed against the lorry, resulting in the death of 4 persons and injuries to one of the passengers of the car. It is not a case where the lorry was a stationery vehicle. Both the vehicles were moving in the same direction and the driver of the car had come from behind and dashed against the lorry, resulting in the death of 4 persons and injuries to one of the passengers of the car. Based on the information given by the driver of the lorry, the Police had registered an FIR against the driver of the car. 17. P.W.2 was the one of the passengers of the car had deposed about the accident. In the Chief-examination, he would state that the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the lorry. In cross-examination by the appellant Insurance Company, he would state that he was sleeping and woke up only after the accident. The relevant portion of the evidence is as follows: IMAGE 18. He would further depose that he does not know what are the goods that were carried in the lorry, he has also deposed that the lorry driver had lodged a complaint stating that the lorry suffered a mechanical defect namely 'Joint Cut' and while he was attempting to go to the left side of the road so as to park the lorry the accident occurred. However, in cross-examination by the 4th respondent respondent/insurer of the lorry, P.W.2 has said that there was nothing protruding from the lorry and that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. 19. We are unable to appreciate the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in order of the cross-examination of the said witness. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence in chief-examination in the present case, it is clear that the case of the claimants and the case of the 4th respondent in the Original Petitions, namely the insurer of the lorry is one and the same, insofar as it relates to the manner in which the accident took place and the negligence. While so, P.W.2 should have been cross-examined first by the insurer of the lorry and thereafter the actual opposite party, namely the insurer of the car should have cross-examined P.W.2. Whatever admissions that were obtained from P.W.2 in the cross-examination by the insurer of the car have been effectively filled up, while he was cross-examined by the insurer of the lorry. Whatever admissions that were obtained from P.W.2 in the cross-examination by the insurer of the car have been effectively filled up, while he was cross-examined by the insurer of the lorry. We are, therefore of the view that any admission obtained by the insurer of the lorry by cross-examining P.W.2 cannot be looked into. 20. Section 138 of the Evidence Act lays down the order in which the examination of the evidences is to be conducted. Section 138 reads as follows: "138. Order of examinations. - Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination. - The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. A cursory reading of the above provision makes it clear that the right of cross-examination is given is to an adverse party and not to a party who sails with the plaintiff or the defendant whose witness is to be cross-examined. 21. In K. Jothi & Others Versus D. Prema & Others, (2009) 7 MLJ 469 , the learned Single Judge of this Court had held that the right of cross-examination is the right given only to an adversary. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in allowing the insurer of the lorry, to cross-examine P.W.2 that too after the adversary, namely the insurer of the car, had cross-examined him had resulted in a serious prejudice to the appellant Insurance Company. The driver of the car had been examined as R.W.1. In his evidence he has deposed that the accident occurred because the container lorry which was proceeding ahead of him stopped suddenly and despite its best efforts he could not prevent the collision. As a result of the impact, the Iron rods and plates which were protruding from the lorry caused grievous injuries to him and the passengers. We are unable to find any effective cross-examination of the said witness in order to disbelieve his version in the chief-examination. As a result of the impact, the Iron rods and plates which were protruding from the lorry caused grievous injuries to him and the passengers. We are unable to find any effective cross-examination of the said witness in order to disbelieve his version in the chief-examination. The FIR has been filed as Ex.P1, by the driver of the lorry reads as follows: IMAGE 22. It is not in dispute that this FIR was lodged on the basis of the report of the driver of the lorry. It is therefore, clear that the lorry had suffered a mechanical defect and was attempting to go to the left side of the road when the accident occurred. A close reading of the above FIR would show that the damage to the lorry was on its right side, it is thus clear that the lorry which had suffered a mechanical defect was attempting to the shift to the left side of the road, the car driven by R.W.1 came from behind and dashed against the right side of the lorry. This crucial fact, namely the fact that the lorry was attempting to go towards the left side of the road has been totally over looked by the Tribunal when it came to the conclusion that the car driver was negligent. This statement in the FIR is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, who admits that the driver of the lorry had given a complaint in which he had in fact stated that the accident occurred when he was attempting to go to the left side of the road. 23. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the driver of the lorry had also contributed to the accident. Unfortunately, the Motor Vehicle Inspector Reports of the both the vehicles have not been produced before the Tribunal. We would be justified in drawing an adverse interference against both the Insurance Companies for non production of the Motor Vehicle Inspector Reports which would have thrown much more light on the contents of the lorry as well as the effect of the mechanical defect, namely breaking of the plate/joint of the lorry, would have had on condition of the vehicle at the time of the accident. We, therefore conclude that it would be just and proper to apportion the negligence between the driver of the car and the lorry at 50 % each. 24. We, therefore conclude that it would be just and proper to apportion the negligence between the driver of the car and the lorry at 50 % each. 24. No doubt Mrs.R.Srividhya, learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the lorry would contend that even assuming that there was some negligence on the part of the lorry, if only the car driver had maintained the required distance he would have avoided the accident. Though, we see some force in the contention of the learned counsel. Considering the fact that the lorry was attempting to get on to the left side of the road because of a mechanical failure in the lorry, we opine that the attempt to switch over to the left side of the road must have been a sudden decision, resulting in the lorry moving towards left unexpectedly taking the driver of the car by surprise. The very fact that the impact on the lorry is on its right side would demonstrate that the car driver had tried his best to avoid the accident. 25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that both the driver of the lorry as well as the car were equally responsible for the accident and the appellant Insurance Company and the insurer of the lorry which figures as the 6th respondent in CMA 622, 623, 624 of 2015 and 9th respondent in CMA No.625 of 2015, 4th respondent in CMA No.626 of 2015, are equally liable to compensate the claimants for the accident. 26. The appeals are therefore allowed in part, the award of the Tribunal relating to negligence is modified holding that both the Insurance companies are equally liable to pay the award amount in all the original Petitions. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27. It is stated that the appellant Insurance Company had deposited 50% of the award amount in each case. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27. It is stated that the appellant Insurance Company had deposited 50% of the award amount in each case. The insurer of the lorry, namely, the 6th respondent in 622, 623, 624 of 2015 and 9th respondent in CMA No.625 of 2015, 4th respondent in CMA No.626 of 2015, is directed to pay 50% of the award amount with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of deposit before the Tribunal to the credit of the respective Original Petitions within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay the shares of the major claimants as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants, in an interest earning fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks till they attain majority, if any of the minor claimant had attained majority the Tribunal is directed to pay the compensation to them directly.