This is an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited (defendant No. 3 in Motor Accident claim case No. 65 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Imphal) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 of the Tribunal passed in the case mentioned above. The only point on which the appellant has challenged the impugned order is on the non-apportionment of the liability between the defendants.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the institution of the case before the MACT is that on 16.02.2012 at about 05:30 A.M. a Tata Magic bearing registration No. MN 01W/4765 belonging to Mr. H. Boren Singh (defendant No. 1before MACT and respondent No. 2 in this case) which was driven by Shri Th. Paka Singh (defendant No. 2 in MACT and respondent No. 3 in this case), insured with the appellant company collided with another vehicle, Tata Truck bearing registration No. MN 01A/4907 (belonging to defendant No.4 in MACT and respondent No. 4 in this case) while it was driven by defendant/respondent No.5 in this case, and as a result, the passengers of the Tata Magic including the claimant, Shri Irom Khogen Singh (respondent No.1 in this case) were injured. For treatment, the claimant (respondent No. 1) was hospitalized for more than 16 (sixteen) days. For injuries suffered and the expenses made for treatment of the same and the disabilities suffered in consequence of the accident, the claimant filed a petition before the MACT praying for compensation. After considering all the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,99,500/- (Rupees two lakh ninety nine thousand and five hundred) only along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the case to the claimant (respondent No. 1). The learned Tribunal directed the appellant company to pay the same as the Tata Magic was insured with it. Being aggrieved by the said award the defendant No. 3 in MACT and appellant in this case has filed this appeal. The grounds on which the appellant has appealed against the impugned order are given here below in verbatim as stated in the appeal petition :

“GROUNDS

(i) For that, the Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur has erred in law as well as in fact in passing the Judgment and order dated 29.04.2013.

(ii) For that, when the alleged accident happened when the insured vehicle bearing Regd. No. MN - 01W/4765 collided with another vehicle i.e. a Tata Truck bearing Regd. No. MN - 01A/4907 which was not insured at the time of the accident causing injuries to the claimant/respondent No. 1. As such the liability to pay compensation has to be apportioned between the two vehicles.

(iii) For that, two vehicles were involved in the accident but the Hon’ble Court fixed the liability only against the insured vehicle without giving any reason whatsoever.

(iv) For that, the accident happened due to collision of two vehicles and any liability has to be shared between the two vehicles in equal proportion. The accident happened due to composite negligence of both the vehicles as such any compensation has to be shared between the two vehicles.

(v) For that, the F.I.R. is very clear the accident happened due to the negligence of both the driver of the vehicles which without doubt shows the reason of the accident.

(vi) For that, the driver of the Truck, respondent No. 5 failed to appear as D.W. to defend the case as such adverse inference can be taken against the truck driver being the larger vehicle as more responsible of the accident.

(vii) For that, the Hon’ble Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 in M.A.C. Case No. 65 of 2012, most mechanically without application of mind and is liable to set aside and quashed.”

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the appellant that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of the Truck with which the Tata Magic collided head on; therefore, the liabil