JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Vash, Sri P.N. Srivastava, and Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Since all the writ petitions arises out of one accident therefore, all the three petitions are being decided jointly. 3. The brief facts of the case are that one Veerpal Singh was travelling on Truck No. UP-71B-6909 being driven by one Rakesh Singh. Nanhu Khan was cleaner on the said Truck. The said Truck met with an accident on 03.02.2009 with Truck No. UP-78BT-0819, which was insured with New India Insurance Company. In the said accident, Veerpal Singh and Rakesh Singh, driver of the truck died and cleaner -Nanhu Khan suffered injuries. 4. Three claim petitions came to be instituted, one by dependent of late Veerpal Singh numbered as M.A.C. No.88/70/2009, Smt. Kamla Devi and Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company. The second was by the dependent of Rakesh Singh, numbered as M.A.C. No.82/70/09, Smt. Mamta and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Ors. The third one was by Nanhu Khan registered as M.A.C. No. 116/70/2009 (Nanhu Khan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Ors.) claiming compensation for injuries suffered by him in the accident. 5. In the aforesaid cases, the owner of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819-respondent No. 12 in Writ Petition No.1020 of 2010, filed written statement denying the averments of claim petition. It is further stated that if the Court finds any liability of the respondent No.12 to pay compensation, the same shall be recovered from the insurer of the Truck i.e. New India Insurance Company as the Truck being validly insured. 6. The petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2010 also filed written statement containing inter-alia that the accident as alleged has taken place by Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. It is further stated that the accident was not the outcome of negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. 7. The owner of the Truck No. UP-71B-6909 namely Ajay Singh-Respondent No.11 also filed written statement in the writ petition denying the fact that the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Truck No.UP-71B-6909. 8. It is further stated that the accident was not the outcome of negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. 7. The owner of the Truck No. UP-71B-6909 namely Ajay Singh-Respondent No.11 also filed written statement in the writ petition denying the fact that the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Truck No.UP-71B-6909. 8. The Insurance Company of the Truck No.UP-71B-6909-respondent no.10 also filed written statement denying its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-71B-6909 and there was no negligence of the driver of Truck no. UP-71B-6909. 9. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues in the context of the present case. It is relevant to notice only issue no.1 framed in respect of contributory negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819, and driver of Truck No. UP-71B-6909 and issue no.5 the quantum of compensation to which the claimant respondent are entitled to receive. 10. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal, after considering the testimony of eye witness of accident i.e. PW-1-Nanhu Khan and DW-1 Ajay singh, the owner of the Truck No. UP-71B-6909, found that the accident had occurred due to negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819, and that accident was outcome of negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. 11. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is evident from the site plan of the accident as well as technical report that the accident was the result of head on collision between the two trucks, therefore, the manner in which the accident took place clearly demonstrate that the accident was outcome of negligence of driver of both the trucks, finding of the Tribunal that the accident was outcome of the negligence of driver of Truck No.UP-78BT-0819 is perverse and against the record. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that eye witness of accident-PW-1 and the owner of the Truck No. UP-71B-6909, Ajay singh, had appeared before the Tribunal and had proved by their testimony that the accident was outcome of negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that eye witness of accident-PW-1 and the owner of the Truck No. UP-71B-6909, Ajay singh, had appeared before the Tribunal and had proved by their testimony that the accident was outcome of negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. He further submits that the site plan and technical report on which the reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner was not proved in accordance with law, and as such the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the site plan as well as technical report of the accident in returning a finding on issue of contributory negligence. It is contended that the finding of fact cannot interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has remedy of filing appeal and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground. 13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 14. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there is a remedy of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that writ petition was filed in the year 2010 and for the last 12 years this petition is pending, therefore, without entering into the question of maintainability of the writ petition this Court proceeds to consider the case on merit. 15. Now coming to the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident was the outcome of the negligence of both the drivers as it is evident from the site plan that it was head on collision between the two trucks and therefore, the driver of both the trucks were negligent. In this respect, it is pertinent to peruse the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1, wherein Tribunal has considered the testimony of PW-1, who was the eye witness of the accident, and had suffered injuries in the accident, the Tribunal after considering the testimony of PW-1 found that the accident was the outcome of negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819. The petitioner did not produce any eye witness or witness to rebut the testimony of PW-1, the eye witness of accident. The petitioner did not produce any eye witness or witness to rebut the testimony of PW-1, the eye witness of accident. Further, the petitioner did not prove the site plan and technical inspection report and as these two documents have not been proved as per law, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly not placed reliance upon these two documents, more so, when the eye witness had appeared and made categorical statement that the accident was outcome of the negligence of driver of Truck No. UP-78BT-0819 and which testimony was not rebutted by the petitioner. 16. In such view of the fact, finding of the Tribunal on issue of contributory negligence being the finding of fact and does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. For the reasons given above, this Court does not find any merit in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed without any order as to cost. 18. Petitioner-Company is further directed to deposit the balance of the awarded amount within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and on depositing the same, the Tribunal is directed to release the awarded amount as per the award passed in each claim petition.