HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3407 of 2011 Date: December 09, 2011 Between: The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Officer, Sankarapuram, Cuddapah. … Appellant And 1. M. Venkatesh & 3 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3407 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.490 of 1999 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident was filed. It was alleged that on 18.02.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. the petitioner, being the driver of the bus AP 03 T 2939, was proceeding from Thiruvannamalai to Chengam with school children, a lorry bearing No.TN 31 Z 1206, which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus, as a result of which he received injuries. Consequently he filed the claim application against the owner and insurer of the bus and also the lorry. 3. The insurance company has contended that the incident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The appellant herein is the insurer of the lorry. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has found that there was head on collision and consequently both the drivers are liable. The lower Tribunal also granted compensation of Rs.1,89,600/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company, who is the second respondent. 4. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation? 5. Point: Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no material to hold that the incident was happened due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and on the other hand the incident has happened due to the fault of the petitioner. In fact, this contention was raised before the lower Tribunal. The first respondent or any other person was not examined to prove that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In fact, the claimant, who is the driver of the bus, was examined and was subjected to cross-examination. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was head on collision between both the vehicles and consequently both the drivers are responsible for the incident. It is a question of fact decided by the lower Tribunal after appreciating the evidence and there being no other evidence to contradict the evidence of the claimant, it cannot be said that the finding of the lower Tribunal is erroneous. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the quantum of compensation granted is excessive. Evidently, the claimant was the driver of the bus and he is said to have received about 12 multiple injuries and also there is disability for performing his duties. Keeping in view the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the assessment of the disability and the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. 7. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 09, 2011. BSB