THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NOS.3209, 3210, 3211, 3213, 3277 AND 3278 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT:- All these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability and also the failure of the lower Tribunal in making an award for apportionment. All the claims arise out of a common accident that occurred on 17-07-2002 while the injured and deceased persons were going in the auto bearing No. AP 16 TT 805 from Gorantla to Ponnekallu and when the auto reached near Tadikonda Sub-station at about 5.30 P.M one RTC Bus bearing No.AP.10Z-9415 coming from Amaravathi to Guntur in a high speed dashed against the auto, as a result, the incident was happened. The ﬁrst respondent is the owner of the Auto and second respondent is the Insurance Company who is the appellant. The third respondent is the owner of the RTC Bus. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled a counter denying the allegations about the rashness and negligence and in fact the rashness and negligence was attributed to the driver of the RTC Bus. The second respondent also ﬁled a similar counter and also further pleaded that there was breach of conditions of policy. Therefore, the second respondent pleaded non-liability. The third respondent also disputed the liability and all the respondents also disputed about the earning capacity and dependency of the petitioners and also the nature of the injuries received by injured persons. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the drivers of the both vehicles and consequently passed the awards making all the respondents liable to pay the compensation. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation and if there is any liability, what is the apportionment that has to be made? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is diﬃcult to expect the auto driver to drive rash and negligently and hit against the bus and, therefore, any contributory negligence attributable to the driver of the auto is less and the negligence of the driver of the bus is more. But, in this case, it is to be noted that it is not an inference that has to be drawn about the percentage of contributory negligence since equal blame has been made against both the drivers of the vehicles whereunder both of them were prosecuted. Therefore, each of them is equally guilty of rashness and negligence and consequently the contributory negligence can be ﬁxed at 50% each on the drivers of the auto and RTC Bus. Though an attempt was sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a violation of conditions of policy, the fact that the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance and it is a passenger auto is not in dispute and consequently the appellant has to pay the compensation. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed in part and the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal shall be paid @ 50% by the appellant and 50% by the A.P.S.R.T.C respectively. Each party is directed to bear his own costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 02-12-2011 TSNR