JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and Mr. N.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, for respondent No.5 and as the appeal is filed only as to the apportionment of compensation between the insurance companies, the Appeal is heard and decided at the stage of admission. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2499 of 2014, dated 06.01.2021, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the appellant-insurance company. 3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4. On 06.11.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., while B.Raja Shekharam (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was proceeding on his Bajaj CT 100 Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-N-7282 from Aramghar to Durga Nagar and when he reached Sai Baba Nagar cross-roads, one Motor Cab (Auto) bearing registration No.AP-28- TV-0289 coming from Saibaba Nagar in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and unfortunately at the same time, one lorry bearing registration No.MH-34-AB-4986 which came from Aramghar in rash and negligent manner ran over the head of the deceased, due to which, head of the deceased was crushed and died on the spot. 4.1. The Police, Shivarampally Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered a case in Crime No.653/2012 under Section 304-A IPC against both the drivers of the Motor Cab as well as the lorry and filed charge sheet and the proceedings were pending trial before the competent Court. 5. The claimants, i.e., wife and son of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the owners of the Motor Cab and Lorry and their respective insurers - insurance companies under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, r/w Rule 475/1B of MV Rules, 1989 read with Sections 163-A and 140-C of the MV Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.75,40,000/- together with costs and interest from the date of petition till the date of realization. 6. 6. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 51 years and was working as Marketing Manager in M/s.SAN PRINTECH PVT.LTD., at Andheri (W), Mumbai, operating from Hyderabad branch on a monthly salary basis @ Rs.35,000/- and contributing the same to the welfare of the claim petitioners. It is contended by the claimants before the Tribunal, that due to death of the deceased, the claim petitioners lost their love and affection and financial support, accordingly, prayed for granting just and fair compensation. 7. The owners of the lorry and Motor Cab i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, remained ex parte before the Tribunal and the insurance companies of the respective vehicles have contested the case and participated in the adjudication process. 8. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2 and respondent No.5 herein was the respondent No.4, before the Tribunal, who are the insurers of the above lorry and motor cab respectively and filed their counters before the Tribunal denying all the allegations in the claim petition, as regards to the accident to the deceased, his age, avocation, health condition, earning capacity and involvement of the crime vehicles. It is further contended that insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was driving is a necessary party to the claim petition and in the absence of the same, the claim petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance companies. 9. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of one Motor Cab bearing No.AP-28-TV-0289 causing death of B.Raja Shekharan ? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief ? 10. 9. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of one Motor Cab bearing No.AP-28-TV-0289 causing death of B.Raja Shekharan ? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief ? 10. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence from P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1, and Exs.A1 to A14 and B1 to B3, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of lorry and auto and held that they were jointly responsible for the accident and further held that the owners and insurance companies of both crime vehicles are vicariously liable to pay compensation in the ratio of 50:50 basis and fixed the liability on all the respondents jointly and severally by awarding compensation of Rs.33,44,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant- insurance company of lorry filed the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the appellant i.e., insurance company of the lorry is not liable to pay the compensation as there is no evidence to show that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident. 12. The learned counsel for appellant while reiterating the contents of counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal, has mainly contended that the Tribunal committed serious irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry even though there was no evidence to prove the negligence on the part of driver of lorry. He further contended that the deceased was initially hit by the driver of the auto, due to which the deceased fell down and there was no chance for the driver of the lorry applying brakes as the deceased fell down suddenly, as such, the insurer of the auto is only liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the deceased was initially hit by the driver of the auto, due to which the deceased fell down and there was no chance for the driver of the lorry applying brakes as the deceased fell down suddenly, as such, the insurer of the auto is only liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that as there is no negligence on the part of the lorry driver in causing the accident, the appellant–insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, and therefore prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal in respect of the appellant-insurance company and finally contends that the apportionment fixed 50:50 in respect of both insurance companies and the owners of the vehicles is bad in law as the Tribunal has not justified the rationale behind the said fixing up of the liability. 13. Before delving into the merits of the case, on a perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact with regard to the manner of accident and its occurrence. The learned counsel for the insurer of the motor cab i.e., respondent No.5, has also not disputed the occurrence of the accident, in which the deceased died. 14. Insofar as the negligence on the part of both vehicles is concerned, a perusal of Ex.B3-scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch which was marked on behalf of the insurer of the auto i.e., respondent No.5 herein shows that lorry and the auto both contributed to death of the deceased on the fateful day. Normally, the impact of lorry will be more when compared to auto and more so, the head of the deceased was totally crushed as the lorry passed over it and in this sort of accidents, the rationale in coming to a conclusion of which vehicles contributed more for the death cannot be assessed. 15. Normally, the impact of lorry will be more when compared to auto and more so, the head of the deceased was totally crushed as the lorry passed over it and in this sort of accidents, the rationale in coming to a conclusion of which vehicles contributed more for the death cannot be assessed. 15. P.W.3-Molakanda Vijay, who is an eye witness to the accident, deposed that on the fateful day of the accident, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from Aramghar to Durga Nagar and reached Saibaba Nagar cross-roads, at that time, auto cab bearing No.AP-28-TV-0289 came from Saibaba Nagar in rash and negligent driving and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, he fell down from the motorcycle and at that time, lorry bearing No.MH- 34-AB-4986 came and rash and negligent manner and the front wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, resulting in crushing injury and died on the spot and the said fact was supported by the certified copies of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest report, Ex.A3-Post-mortem examination report and Ex.A6-charge sheet. 16. In view of the above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of lorry and the motor cab. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant-insurance company that the insurance company of the motorbike, on which the deceased was travelling, was a necessary party is hereby rejected as this already held that both lorry and the auto are responsible for the accident. As such, drivers and owners of both the vehicles and their respective insurance companies are liable to compensate for the death of deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on owners and the insurers of the auto and the lorry equally. 17. Insofar as the ratio of compensation to be paid by the owners and their respective insurance companies, in APSRTC vs. N. Krishna Reddi and others , 2004 SCC Online AP 357, the learned single Judge of erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held as under: “5. Since first respondent received injuries due to a collision between the two vehicles, i.e., the van in which he was travelling and bus coming in its opposite direction, unless the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent, the accident could not have taken place. Since first respondent received injuries due to a collision between the two vehicles, i.e., the van in which he was travelling and bus coming in its opposite direction, unless the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent, the accident could not have taken place. Even if one of them was careful, they could have easily averted the accident. Obviously that is the reason why the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident were made parties to the claim petition. So I hold that the accident involving the first respondent took place due to 50% negligence of the driver of the van of second respondent and due to 50% negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. The point is answered accordingly.” 18. In the light of the above discussion and legal position and the findings arrived above in para Nos.14 and 15 of this order, this Court is of the view that the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the findings of the learned Tribunal. 19. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. The appellant and the respondent No.5-insurance company are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amounts as per the apportionment awarded by the Tribunal. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.