Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased persons in an accident that took place on 11th January, 1983. 2. On 11-1-1983, a tourist taxi bearing Registration No. TMN2623 collided head-on with a bus belonging to Kattabomman Transport Corporation, as a result of which two persons, one driver of the taxi and another a passenger in the taxi, died. The legal representatives of 1 hese two individuals have filed M.C.O.Ps. 49 and 67 of 1983, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tirunelveli, claiming a compensation of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 80,000 respectively. 3. The respondent-corporation inter alia contended that the accident took place purely on account of negligent driving on the part of the driver, who died tin the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent corporation and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. After elaborately discussing the matter and in the light of the sketch drawn with reference to the accident spot and the F.I.R. and the oral evidence, the tribunal has found that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tourist taxi and not due to any rashness and negligence on the part of the corporations bus driver. Consequently the tribunal dismissed the applications for compensation. It may also be mentioned that even before the tribunal, on behalf of the respondent, a plea was taken, namely, that they should have impleaded the owner of the taxi as well as the Insurance company with which the taxi has been insured. Accepting that plea as well, the tribunal, while dismissing the petitions, has given a finding that the petitions are bad for non-joinder of proper parties. 5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said O.Ps., these appeals are filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for both the appellants have fairly stated that they cannot, on merits, convince us that the findings given by the tribunal are in any way erroneous. They submitted that assuming that there was negligence on the part of the taxi driver, that does not automatically lead to the only conclusion that the respondents bus driver was not at all at fault. They submitted that assuming that there was negligence on the part of the taxi driver, that does not automatically lead to the only conclusion that the respondents bus driver was not at all at fault. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, they submitted that the tribunal should have held that the respondents driver also was partly negligent and partly responsible for the accident and as such liable for compensation. They also contended that at least the compensation for no fault liability as comtemplated under S. 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 may be given to the legal representatives of the deceased persons after fixing partial liability on the corporations driver. 7. Mr. A.R. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the above pleas were not taken before the Tribunal, and even otherwise, in the absence of proper parties, it is not possible to grant such relief. In other words, according to the learned counsel, having regard to the finding of the tribunal that the accident was on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the taxi driver, the liability, if at all, under S. 92A of the Act will be on the owner of the taxi and consequently on the insurance company with which the taxi was insured. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the corporation is not liable to pay any amount under S. 92A of the Act or towards compensation. 8. We have cunsidered the rival submissions. On a perusal of the judgment and in the light of the fact that the legal representatives of the deceased persons have filed these appeals and having regard to the circumstances urder which the deceased met with the death, we are of the view that there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. The mere fact that the taxi driver was negligent will not automatically absolve the respondent from all liabilities. From the narration of events, it is possible to hold that if only the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent-corporation was careful and vigilant and stopped the bus on Seeing the taxi overtaking another vehicle, the accident could have been avoided. To that extent, we hold that the respondents driver was also responsible partly for the accident. This cannot be overcome by taking a technical objection that this point was not taken. To that extent, we hold that the respondents driver was also responsible partly for the accident. This cannot be overcome by taking a technical objection that this point was not taken. As the point for consideration was, who was responsible for the accident, the above issue can very well be brought under this large issue. 9. Inasmuch as the negligence on thepart of the driver of the respondent-corporation was only minimal, we do not propose togo into the details of the respective claims, but split the no fault liability and award asum of Rs. 7,500 to each set of the appellantsin C.M.A. Nos. 5 of 1985 and 112 of 1987. We, therefore, feel that the respondent-corporation can be directed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 7,500 to the legal representatives in eachcase in all. This direction is given in thepeculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. 10. Accordingly, the respondent isdirected to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500 to the appellants in C.M.A. 5 of 1985 and another sumof Rs. 7,500 to the appellants in C.M.A. No. 112 of 1987. We direct the corporation to paythese amounts within four weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. Asthe claimants are all residing at Rasipuram, we direct the respondent-corporation to sendthe amount to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid and Advisory Board, who inturn will send the amount through properchannel to the claimants. 11. The Office is directed to send a copv of the judgment and decree to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid and Advisory Board to enable the same to send the amounts to the appellants. 12. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.