( 1 ) THESE four appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same transaction. The accident occurred on 14/05/1984 at about 1. 30 p. m. at National Highway No. 9, in front of Deccan Steel, Ashoknagar, in which Ambassador car bearing No. AAT-445 in which the two injured claimants were travelling and the lorry bearing No. ATT-4674 have collided. As a result of which, the injured have sustained-extensive injuries. They laid their claims in O. Ps. 795 and 796 of 1984. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 1,45,000. 00 to the injured in O. P. 795/84 against which, C. M. A. 793/87 has been filed by the National Insurance Company. C. M. A. 448/87 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company. A sum of Rs. 26,710. 00was awarded to the victim in O. P. 796/84 against which C. M. A. No. 508/87 has been filed by the National Insurance Company. C. M. A. 449/87 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company. The Ambassador car was insured with the National Insurance Company and the lorry was insured with the New India Insurance Company. The cross-objections were filed by the owner of the car Thus, all the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE contention of the owner of the Ambassador car the cross-objector is that the accident has occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that the driver of the car is not responsible for the accident. I find no force in the contention though Sri Reddappa Reddy the learned counsel for the owner of the car has come to a different conclusion reached by the Tribunal below. I am inclined to hold that the accident occurred and the drivers of both the car and the lorry are equally responsible for the accident. It is not in dispute that the Motor Vehicles Inspector submitted his report which is marked as Ex. A3. In the report he pointed out that the right side centre of the from bumper of the lorry was dented. That would show that the Ambassador car came very rashly and dashed against the lorry. The main body of the lorry itself hit against the car causing extensive damage to the car. That would go to show that the driver of the lorry was negligent in driving it at high speed on the national highway thereby the car had sustained extensive damage. Thus, it is clear that both the drivers are equally contributed for the accident. The finding recorded by the Tribunal below that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and it is well supported by the solitary evidence of P. W. 1 for which strong reliance was placed by Sri Reddappa Reddy the learned counsel for the owner.

( 3 ) IT is next to be seen that what is the contribution of the each of the Insurance Companies have to bear. When both the drivers are equally contributed, then both the Insurance Companies have to bear the liability proportionately, that is, 50 per cent each. This apportionment was not made by the Tribunal below resulting in filing of the appeals by both the Insurance Companies. Accordingly the appeals filed by New India Assurance Company are allowed directing that the Company is liable to pay half of the amount in both the claims. As regards the National Insurance Company is concerned, admittedly the Ambassador car is a taxi car As per the policy now placed before me the premium at the rate of Rs. 12. 00per passenger and for 5 passengers Rs. 60. 00 is collected. If that be so, the liability is to be determined at Rs. 15,000. 00 as the maximum liability, Sri Reddappa Reddy the learned counsel contended that the policy shows that the liability is Rs. 50,000. 00 therefore it should be confined to Rs. 50,000. 00. I find no force in the contention. As per S. 95 (2) (b) (ii) the liability is determined as per the contract of Insurance. The contract of insurance clearly shows that the premium was collected at Rs. 12. 00 per passenger. Rs. 60. 00 was collected for 5 passengers. Thereby the liability