HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2136 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.1082 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur. A claim was made for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 14.01.2000 at about 11.15 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in the auto bearing No.AP 16 W 8652 from Vijayawada to Mangalagiri, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Car bearing No.AP 7 J 1222, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and was treated in the hospital and spent money for treatment. The appellant is Insurer of the auto. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are owners of both vehicles. The appellant herein filed a counter denying all the allegations in the petition putting the petitioner to strict proof the rashness and negligence on the part of the drivers, nature of incident, nature of injuries received by the petitioner and also the medical expenditure incurred by him. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.69,380/- and fixed the liability on the respondents holding that the incident was occurred due to the fault of the driver of the auto. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the complaint given by the claimant and also the investigation done by the police clearly goes to show that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the Car and the claim of the petitioner before the Court is inconsistent with his earlier version given in the complaint. Evidently, from the allegations made in the petition and the evidence of the petitioner and also the investigation done by the police, there appears to be a case of negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and merely because the driver of the car was charged with the contributory negligence, the driver of the auto cannot be excluded. The petitioner was travelling in the auto and he is the person, who is competent to speak about the driving of the auto by its driver. Therefore, from the narration of the incident and also the evidence on record, I feel that the case can be taken as a one where there is contributory negligence by both the drivers of the vehicle and the responsibility shall be fixed equally. Hence, the appellant shall pay 50% of the compensation and the balance shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. With the above modification, the appeal is confirmed. 4. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:20.09.2011 INL