JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company. 2. The instant appeal is taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Act of 1908’) for deciding as to whether the present appeal can be proceeded with. 3. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment and award dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No.126/2017 wherein an amount of Rs.1,10,904/- along with interest @ 9% per annum have been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 08.09.2017 till its realization. 4. The ground of objection which has been taken in the instant appeal is that the learned Tribunal had saddled the entire liability upon the appellant Insurance Company when the present case pertains to a case of head on collision and as such on the face of it, there was contributory negligence. 5. This Court finds it very relevant to take note of that at paragraph No.21 of the impugned judgment and award dated 10.03.2023, the learned Tribunal had duly dealt with why the entire liability has been imposed upon the appellant Insurance Company. Taking into account the relevance of paragraph No.21 of the impugned judgment and award, the said paragraph No.21 is reproduced herein under: “21. Now, the question is who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. It has already been discussed that the accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-05-C-2424 (Dumper). Though Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 2 has argued that accident took place due to head on collision between the two vehicles for which Insurance companies of both vehicles are liable for compensation. It is found from the Accident Information Report that driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-05-C-2424 (Dumper) is liable for his rash and negligent driving and because of which accident took place. Moreover it is settled law that mere head on collision itself is not sufficient to prove contributory negligence of the other vehicle. In present case at hand, no such evidence is found. Moreover it is settled law that mere head on collision itself is not sufficient to prove contributory negligence of the other vehicle. In present case at hand, no such evidence is found. Record also transpires that at the relevant point of time, the driver of the said Dumper vehicle had possessed a valid driving licence and as such the owner has not violated the condition of the insurance policy. It is also reveals that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AS-05-C-2424 (Dumper) was insured with O.P. No.2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and found valid as per Accident Information Report (Ext-1).” 6. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that during the course of the hearing, this Court had put a pointed query upon the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company as to whether any evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company proving that there was any fault on the part of the driver of the other vehicle. The learned counsel submitted that there was no such evidence led however during the cross-examination, it was admitted that there was a head on collision. 7. It is the opinion of this Court that merely there being a head on collision of two vehicles, the question of contributory negligence would not arise unless any evidence is adduced to the effect that there was some fault on the part of the other vehicle which had resulted in the head on collision. 8. Considering the above, as the learned Tribunal had rightly decided and imposed the compensation upon the appellant Insurance Company, this Court finds no ground for interference with the impugned judgment and award dated 10.03.2023 passed in MAC Case No.126/2017 by the learned Tribunal for which the instant appeal stands dismissed. The Appellant is directed to deposit the awarded amount along with interest before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks from today. 9. This Court further observes and directs that pursuant to the deposit of the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal, the Appellant Insurance Company upon production of the order of the learned Tribunal that the awarded amount had been deposited would be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking refund of the statutory deposit before the Registry of this Court and the Registry thereupon shall return the statutory deposit.