JUDGMENT : BUDI HABUNG, J. Heard Ms. P. Baruah in MAC Appl. No. 109/2011 for the appellant; Mr. R. Goswami in MAC Appl. No. 107/2011 for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, and Ms. R. D. Mozumdar for respondent No. 4 in MAC Appl. No. 109/2011; Ms. P. Baruah for respondent No. 1, and Mr. R. C. Paul for respondent No. 4 in MAC Appl. No. 107/2011. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 17.02.2011 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No.165/2005, they are taken up together for disposal. 3. On 16.02.2005, the deceased Pawan Kumar Jalan was driving 407 Van No. AS-03-A-4577 carrying biscuits from Numaligarh to Bokakhat. When the vehicle reached near Rajabari on National Highway 37, a truck bearing No. AS-25-B-2538 coming from the opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the 407 Van, resulting in death of the driver on the spot, caused injuries to the handyman and also damage to both vehicles. 4. The claimants being legal heir filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short ‘M.V. Act’) claiming Rs. 16,14,000/- as compensation on account of death of the deceased. The owner, driver and insurer of the truck, and the owner and insurer of the van were impleaded as respondents. 5. The respondents contested the case by filing written statements. However, the respondents did not dispute the accident, death of the deceased or existence of valid insurance coverage of the vehicle. 6. During trial, the claimant examined two witnesses. PW-1, the wife of the deceased, deposed regarding the age of the deceased and proved that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of his death. She further deposed that the deceased was a businessman and his income was Rs.10,000/- per month. However, as she was not an eye-witness, her evidence regarding the manner of accident was not relied upon. 7. PW-2, handyman of the Van is the eye witness to the incident. He was travelling in the 407 and testified that the offending truck was coming from the opposite side in excessive speed and driven in rash and negligent manner, caused head-on collision with the Van resulting the death of the deceased on the spot. 7. PW-2, handyman of the Van is the eye witness to the incident. He was travelling in the 407 and testified that the offending truck was coming from the opposite side in excessive speed and driven in rash and negligent manner, caused head-on collision with the Van resulting the death of the deceased on the spot. Nothing material was elicited in cross-examination to discredit the evidence of PW-2. 8. It is seen though the FIR initially mentioned negligence on both sides as there was an allegation of head on collision, the charge-sheet was filed only against the driver of the truck. 9. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that both drivers of the vehicles were equally negligent and accordingly applied 50% contributory negligence. 10. On consideration, the monthly income of the deceased was taken on notional and assessed at Rs.7,000/-, the age of the deceased was taken between 38-42 years old, hence, multiplier by 15, deduction 1/3rd, thus resulting in Rs. 8,40,000/-, plus conventional heads totaling Rs. 8,57,500/-. Accordingly, both the insurers Insurance Companies have been directed to pay 50% each. GROUNDS IN APPEAL 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant/claimants filed MAC Appeal No.109/2011 on the following grounds: (i) That there is no any evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the vehicle 407/Van. (ii) That after thorough investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed only against the truck driver and not against the ill-fated vehicle 407/Van. (iii) That the evidence of PW-2 who is an eye witness to the incident establishes sole negligence of truck driver and his evidence remained unrebutted. (iv) That the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest from the date of judgment but the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition from 05.08.2005. Hence, the same requires modification. (v) And further submitted that the compensation granted to the claimants under conventional head requires enhancement in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case. 12. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimants relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the following cases: (i). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guria Sahani & Ors. 12. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimants relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the following cases: (i). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guria Sahani & Ors. , 2023 ACC 1660 : (2023) 4 GLT 381 , wherein the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held that, in the absence of any proof of contributory negligence, the Insurance Company cannot be made responsible to pay 50% of the awarded amount; (ii). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bithika Bauragi & Ors. , 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2795 , wherein it has been held that merely because there was a head-on collision between two vehicles, the question of contributory negligence would not arise unless any evidence is adduced to that effect; and (iii). Tinkumoni Talukdar Bordoloi & Anr. v. Director of Health Services & Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 1278 : (2023) 1 GLT 166 , wherein it has been held that in all cases of head-on collision between two vehicles, the accident cannot be attributed to contributory negligence in the absence of any proof of contributory or composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles. 13. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents No.3 in MAC Appeal No.109/2011 and respondent No.4 in MAC Appeal No.107/2011 while supporting the judgment dated 17.02.2011 passed in MAC Case No.165/2005 submitted that the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to finding in apportioning the liabilities against both the vehicle as 50:50 ratio. Therefore no interference is called for. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the this Hon’ble High Court in Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd-Vs-Abdul Karim & Ors., reported in (2012)2 GLR 859 , whereby the Court came to the finding that the accident took place due to the negligence of both vehicles owing to a head-on collision, and since there was contributory negligence on the part of both vehicles, the Court, in such circumstances, apportioned the liability between the insurers of both vehicles involved in the accident, fixing 50% liability on each vehicle against the awarded amount. 14. The insurer of the vehicle 407-Van filed MAC Appeal No.107/2011 amongst other on the following grounds: (i) That the deceased was not a third party. 14. The insurer of the vehicle 407-Van filed MAC Appeal No.107/2011 amongst other on the following grounds: (i) That the deceased was not a third party. (ii) He was not an employed driver of the vehicle 407/Van but he was driving his own vehicle. (iii) Thus, the deceased/driver stepped into the shoes of the owner. 15. The submission of the appellant is supported by the following decisions of the Supreme Court: Jhuma Saha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2007) 9 SCC 263 ; and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2020) 2 SCC 550. 16. Hence, for the reason stated above, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is not liable. DISCUSSION AND DECISION: 17. From the pleadings, the first issue emerges for decisions in both cases are whether there was any Contributory Negligence on the part of both the vehicles? 18. The claimant examined two witnesses. The evidence of the PW-2 is crucial as he was the eye witness to the incident. His testimony establishes that there was negligence solely on the part of the truck driver and the same remained unimpeached. His evidence received support by the fact that the charge-sheet was filed against only the offending truck driver. 19. A head-on collision by itself does not automatically constitute contributory negligence. In the instant case, the insurer only stated that there was a head in collision. Given the facts fully supported by evidence of an unrebutted eye witness (PW-2), the mere statement of head in collision without any evidence supporting the statement does not automatically constitute contributory negligence. 20. Under the circumstances and for the reason stated above, the finding of contributory negligence by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside. As stated above, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver only. 21. The second issue emerged for decision from the pleadings is “whether the insurer of 407/Van is liable”. 22. From the record and submissions, it is now established that the deceased was not employed as a paid driver, but was driving his own vehicle. Hence, he stepped into the shoes of the owner, and the policy under Section 147 does not cover such risk in absence of personal accident coverage. In view of the above, the United India Insurance Co. Hence, he stepped into the shoes of the owner, and the policy under Section 147 does not cover such risk in absence of personal accident coverage. In view of the above, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer of 407 Van) is exonerated from any liability in the case. 23. As a result, the entire liability falls on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer of the offending truck). 24. The 3rd issue emerged for consideration is regarding quantum and if the claimant is entitled for compensation as per the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case. 25. The monthly Income of the deceased is accepted by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 7,000/-. In view of the above, and as agreed upon, the compensation entitled to the claimants is worked out as under: - Add 25% for future prospects (self-employed) : Rs. 8,750/- - Deduct 1/3 rd : Rs. 5,833/- per month - Annual : Rs. 70,000/- (approx) - Multiplier 14 (age 42) : Rs. 9,80,000/- - Conventional Heads (as per Pranay Sethi’s case) (Funeral Expense + Loss of Estate + Loss of Consortium) : Rs. 70,000/- - Total Compensation : Rs. 10,50,000/- 26. For the reasons as stated above, the MAC Appeal No.109/2011 is partly allowed. The MAC Appeal No.107/2011 is allowed and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is exonerated from liability. 27. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of Truck No. AS-25- B-2538, shall pay the entire compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/- to the claimants. The amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed to deposit the amounts before the learned Tribunal within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. 28. Any amount already deposited/withdrawn shall be adjusted. 29. With the above observation and direction, the MAC Appl. No. 109/2011 and MAC Appl. No. 107/2011 stands disposed of. 30. No order as to costs.