THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.2954 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 08.04.2004, passed in O.P.No.86 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 12.11.1998, while Venkata Narsimha Chary, aged 60 years, was travelling along with his relatives in a car bearing No. AP-23-T-4168 and when it reached near Gottemukkula Thanda, the driver of the car drove it in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-4134, which was coming from opposite side, due to which, said Venkata Narsimha Chary sustained fracture injuries to his left hand, right leg, knee joint and other parts of the body. He filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. During the pendency of the O.P., he died and his legal representatives i.e., Respondents 2 to 5/claimants being the wife and the sons of the deceased were brought on record. The appellant-respondent No.2 was contested the matter by filing counter-affidavit. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,02,000/-with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation against the appellant-insurer and respondent No.7- owner of the car. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that as the accident occurred due to head on collision, the principle of contributory negligence is applicable and that the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that P.W.2, who is co-injured of the deceased, has clearly and categorically stated that when the car reached near Gottemukkula Thanda, its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the APSRTC bus, due to which, she sustained head injury and the deceased sustained fracture injuries to his legs and hands. She also stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Further, Exs.A1 and A2- FIR and charge sheet respectively, disclose that the driver of the car was responsible for the accident. Insofar as the head on collision is concerned, the appellant-insurer has not examined any eyewitness on its behalf as to the occurrence of the said accident. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of the car and the APSRTC Bus and that the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the car was only responsible for the accident. As regards the quantum of compensation, there is no dispute. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.08.2010 sj