THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2746 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the order dated 02-08-2004 in O.P.No.134 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Anantapur by the second respondent, who is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA 21 6960 fixing the liability of payment of 50% compensation. A claim was made for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- by the claimants and according to the claimants on 28-10-1999 when the deceased was travelling as a cleaner in the lorry AP 02 U 0399 to Bangalore from V.Kota of Chittoor District and at about 2.45 P.M near Palamaner cross roads, when the driver of the said lorry was negotiating the turning, one tanker bearing No.KA 21 6960 came in opposite direction and both the vehicles collided and the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling turned turtle and he died. Thereafter, the police have investigated into the case and the claim was made against the owner and the insurer of both the vehicles. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that there was collision between both vehicles and consequently the apportionment was made fixing the liability at 50% each. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no dispute, but, however according to him, the incident has happened due to the fault of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 02 U 0399 which was insured with the 4th respondent and the police have also investigated into the case and filed a charge sheet and the evidence of PW.1 supports the above fact, but, the lower Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence of 50% without any basis. In this case, the fact that both the vehicles were involved in the incident are not in dispute. Ex.A-1 F.I.R. clearly goes to show that there was a collision of both the vehicles and it was sought to be supported by the evidence of PW.1. The evidence of RW.1 is of no avail since he is not an eye witness to the incident. Though the charge sheet is said to have been filed only against the driver of the other vehicle, but, it is not on record. Even assuming to be that the charge sheet was filed only against the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling, still in a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal is not barred from considering the question of contributory negligence in awarding compensation. First Information Report primarily shows that it was a case of collision between the two vehicles and consequently the opinion arrived at by the Tribunal below that both the drivers are responsible cannot be said to be based on no evidence. I find there is no other evidence on the side of the appellant to show that the contents in the F.I.R incorrect and therefore for the above reasons there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 14-11-2011 TSNR