JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in M.F.A.No.22429/2011 is absent. Though the KSRTC is served in M.F.A.No.22426/2011, there is no representation. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimants in both the appeals is also absent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 08.03.2055 at about 9.50 a.m., they boarded a KSRTC vehicle bearing registration No.KA-38/F230 to go to Bellary and when they near Toranagallu road cross, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and took the vehicle to the right side and thereby hit to the lorry bearing registration No.KA-34/C-1234 which came from Toranagallu. As a result, both the vehicles were damaged and inmates of the bus sustained grievous as well as simple injuries all over the body and after the accident, the claimants were shifted to Jindal Sanjeevini Hospital for treatment. It is the case of the claimants that they spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. It was the claim of the claimants before the Tribunal that prior to the accident, they were hale and healthy and were working as agriculturist and mechanic respectively by profession and they were the only bread earner of their family and thereby maintaining their families. Due to the accident, the claimants have become physically and permanently disabled. Hence, the claimants filed claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking for compensation. 3. In support of their claim, the claimants got examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-3 and the other inmates of the KSRTC bus as P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 and also got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the other hand, respondents examined one witness as RW-1. The Tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. payable by the Insurance Company and the KSRTC in the ratio of 50:50. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 4. The Tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. payable by the Insurance Company and the KSRTC in the ratio of 50:50. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in both the appeals is that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the accident took place solely on the negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus driver i.e., respondent No.2 while answering issue No.1 and when the Tribunal has given definite finding that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus driver who is examined as RW-1 but in the operative portion of the order has erroneously directed the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., the appellant herein and the KSRTC to pay the compensation to the claimants jointly and severally at the ratio of 50:50 and the said operative portion of the order is against the finding of issue No.1. Learned counsel would also submit that charge-sheet is also filed against the driver of the KSRTC and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and in the complaint also specific allegations are made against the driver of the KSRTC and in the claim petition specific allegations are made against the driver of the KSRTC. Even though the Tribunal has given the definite finding against driver of the KSRTC but erroneously apportioned the liability at the rate of 50% each and the same is erroneous and also against the finding of the Tribunal and hence, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference of this Court. 5. Even though the Tribunal has given the definite finding against driver of the KSRTC but erroneously apportioned the liability at the rate of 50% each and the same is erroneous and also against the finding of the Tribunal and hence, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference of this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the allegation is made against driver of the KSRTC bus in the respective claim petitions to the effect that the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry as a result of which the claimants sustained injuries and even on perusal of the evidence of P.W.-1/Mallikarjuna i.e., the appellant in M.F.A.No.22426/2011 and P.W.-3/Balasubramanya i.e., the appellant in M.F.A.No.22429/2011 wherein both of them in their evidence have stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, but in the cross-examination they have deposed that they are not aware on account of whose negligence accident has taken place. But, in their chief-examination specific allegations are made against the driver of the KSRTC bus. The Tribunal has given definite finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC while answering issue No.1 in paragraph 9. No doubt, though it was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, in order to substantiate the same, except examining the driver of the KSRTC bus i.e., RW-1, nothing is placed on record. No doubt, the claimants who have been examined before the Tribunal in the cross-examination have stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC. Admittedly, the chargesheet is also filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus and without any finding against the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, the Tribunal committed an error in the operative portion apportioning the negligence at the rate of 50% on the KSRTC and the insurer of the offending vehicle without any material on record and also without any discussion with regard to the said fact. When such being the case, this is a fit case to set aside the operative portion apportioning liability to the extent of 50% each on the KSRTC and the insurer of the offending vehicle by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal fastening the liability entirely against the driver of the KSRTC bus and consequently the KSRTC is liable to pay entire compensation. 6. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed in part, ii) The judgment and award dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge cum Member VI-MACT at Kudligi in M.V.C.Nos.35/2009 and 38/2009 is set aside, iii) The KSRTC is directed to pay the entire compensation with interest as directed by the Tribunal and the liability of the Insurance Company is exonerated, iv) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company is ordered to be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper identification. v) The registry is directed to send back the TCR forthwith.