bus belonging to the second respondent and the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and rough sketch of the place, where the accident took place, and came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers. The Tribunal rightly rejected the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2, as they are interested witnesses. The Tribunal rejected the F.I.R. and the Judgment of the Criminal Court after properly appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in before it. The Tribunal has given valid reason for not accepting the F.I.R. and Judgments of Criminal Court. It is well settled that when two vehicles are involved in the accident, based on evidence, liability must be fastened on the owners of both the vehicles. In the present case, evidence available on record clearly shows that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent is liable to pay 50% and the respondents 2 and 3 are to pay 50% is based on valid and cogent reasons and there is no infirmity in the said finding. Therefore, the said finding is confirmed.
