Judgment :- The petitioner-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Division-I, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District (first respondent before the Tribunal) has preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the Award dated 23. 2006 in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Mayiladuthurai. 2. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, while passing the impugned Award in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2005, dated 23. 2006, has inter-alia observed that the first respondent-claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.9,000/-as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident and directed the revision petitioner-Transport Corporation and the second and third respondents to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally within one month from the date of the Award and also granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the Award amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 3. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has apportioned the compensation amount of Rs.9,000/- by directing the revision petitioner-Transport Corporation and respondents 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-Transport Corporation urges before this Court that the impugned Award of the Tribunal is contrary to law and evidence, that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/-without any documentary proof for the disability caused to the first respondent-claimant, that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the driver of the bus belonging to the petitioner-Transport Corporation was driving the bus slowly and cautiously at the time of the accident and in any event, the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law, besides the compensation awarded is an excessive one, and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition. 5. It is to be borne to be mind that the first respondent-claimant in the Claim Petition has averred that he has travelled in the load van bearing Registration No.TN-51-4190 on 14. 5. It is to be borne to be mind that the first respondent-claimant in the Claim Petition has averred that he has travelled in the load van bearing Registration No.TN-51-4190 on 14. 2005 at about 9.30 a.m. by carrying the wooden board and wooden log and while the van was proceeding from East to West and nearing Mahadhaanapuram, West of the Bus Stand, at that time, while crossing the lorry on the South of the Road, on the opposite direction, the bus belonging to the Government Bus, bearing No.TN-49-N-1068, coming from West to Eastern side, was driven by its driver Roosevelt in a high speed and negligently, without sounding horn, dashed against the load van violently, in which the claimant was travelling, as a result of which, the van got smashed, resulting in the death of the driver of the van, besides causing injuries to him and others. Immediately, the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital. The accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. But at the behest of the Transport Corporations higher officials, the Police have registered a case wrongly against the deceased van driver Ganesan. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered injury on his chin and he was treated with sutures and suffered injury on the right knee, for which also, sutures had been done and also suffered abrasion all over the body. Because of the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant was not in a position to go for his employment and there was loss of income to him and his family was also affected. Hence, the claim was made for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 6. The load van in which the first respondent-claimant travelled belongs to the second respondent and the third respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the load van has been insured. 7. Hence, the claim was made for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 6. The load van in which the first respondent-claimant travelled belongs to the second respondent and the third respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the load van has been insured. 7. Before the Tribunal, the third respondent-Insurance Company, in its counter affidavit has inter-alia stated that the accident is "head-on collision" between two moving vehicles and therefore, the negligence cannot be attributed to the van driver without independent materials to substantiate the same, that the driver of the van TN-51-4190 at the time of the accident was holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle, that the first respondent-claimant has not even mentioned the name of the Doctor from whom he was taking treatment after his discharge from the Government Hospital, that the claimant has not suffered injuries of any significance, as seen from the Discharge Chit said to have been issued by the Government Hospital and in any event, the first respondent-claimant is not entitled to claim any interest, much less one claimed in the petition and in any event, the claim of compensation of Rs.20,000/- is glaringly excessive and is not proportionate to the alleged injuries suffered and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 8. The second respondent (the owner of the van) remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 9. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent-claimant was examined as P.W.1 and on the side of the claimant, Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked. 10. One cannot ignore an important fact that it is the duty of the Tribunal to help the claimant. Admittedly, the proceedings in a Claim Petition are of summary in nature and the Tribunal cannot expect standard of proof as required in civil or criminal cases, in the considered opinion of this Court. It is true that the technical rules of pleadings, and so also, the evidence, are not applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. But it is well settled principle of law that there cannot be an apportionment of claim of each tort-feasor(s) in the absence of a definite finding, fixing the liability. 11. Be that as it may, it is useful to extract the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned Award of the Tribunal, which run as follows: "6. But it is well settled principle of law that there cannot be an apportionment of claim of each tort-feasor(s) in the absence of a definite finding, fixing the liability. 11. Be that as it may, it is useful to extract the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned Award of the Tribunal, which run as follows: "6. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court goes to give the following findings. Ex.P.1 is the xerox copy of the FIR, Ex.P-2 is the MVI report. Ex.P.3 is the MVI Report for the van. Ex.P.7 is the injury certificate filed before this court to prove the alleged accident that took place on 14. 2005. Respondent side counsel argued that Ex.P.7 does not disclose that the petitioner suffered injury and he was not a victim during the accident. This contention is not acceptable to this court for the reason that Ex.P.1 is the copy of this FIR which shows that the accident had taken place on 14. 2005 and the petitioner was an injured in the accident. The OP chit given also disclose that petitioner had taken treatment in hospital as inpatient. The injuries in the opinion of this court is simple and as a traveller petitioner had this risk. In the opinion of this court these documents prove the alleged accident and that the petitioner was also injured. The lorry was duly insured and for the injuries suffered by the petitioner this court awards a compensation of Rs.9,000/-. This includes pain and sufferings. Except compensation on this head this court is not inclined to given any other compensation to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petitioner is eligible to receive Rs.9,000/-as compensation for the injuries suffered by him during the motor accident. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount within one month from the date of order. The petitioner is eligible to interest at 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The first respondent is directed to pay Rs.4500/- and 2nd and 3rd respondents are liable to pay Rs.4500/-. Petitioner is eligible to receive the compensation in cash. This petition is partly allowed with proportionate cost. Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,000/-." 12. The first respondent is directed to pay Rs.4500/- and 2nd and 3rd respondents are liable to pay Rs.4500/-. Petitioner is eligible to receive the compensation in cash. This petition is partly allowed with proportionate cost. Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,000/-." 12. From a perusal of the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal, it is candidly clear that no issue/point has been framed as to whether the bus driver of the Transport Corporation, bearing Regn. No.TN-49-N-1068, driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident on 14. 2005 at about 9.30 a.m., or as to whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van bearing Regn. No.TN-51-4190, by its driver. There is also no issue/point framed in regard to the quantum of compensation to which the first respondent-claimant is entitled to receive from the tort-feasor(s), resultantly, fixing the liability, either jointly or severally. 13. Moreover, as seen from the impugned Award, there is no reasoning assigned by the Tribunal as to how it has determined the act of each tort-feasor(s) and fastened his/its liability jointly or severally and directed them to pay Rs.4,500/-respectively. Nowhere in the Award, it is mentioned that the Tribunal is not in a position to determine the ratio of negligence of the joint tort-feasor(s). Only if the Tribunal is not in a position to come to a conclusion fixing the ratio of negligence of the tort-feasor(s), then only it is not necessary for it to apportion the claim. However, if there is sufficient evidence in regard to the act of each tort-feasor(s), then, it is possible for the Tribunal to apportion the claim considering the exact nature of evidence by both the parties. 14. As far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal, first of all has not framed necessary issues/points for determination and answered the same in its Award. Added further, to put it precisely, there is no issue in regard to the negligence of either the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation or the driver of the van in regard to the happening of the accident and also as to the quantum of the amount of compensation to which the first respondent-claimant is entitled to, from the concerned parties either jointly or severally, though a claim has been made for Rs.20,000/-by the claimant in the Claim Petition. On a perusal of Ex.P-7--O.P. Chit issued by the Government Periyar Hospital, Mayiladuthurai, in favour of the first respondent-claimant, it is seen that the date of admission is mentioned as 14. 2005 and the date of discharge is mentioned as 14. 2005. Further, the first respondent-claimant has been directed to attend the O.P. in case of any discomfort felt by him and therefore, in any event, the compensation of Rs.9,000/-together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, etc., is exorbitant, considering the nature of injuries suffered, as opined by this Court. 15. Earlier, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, this Court has passed an order of interim stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner (appellant) deposits the entire award amount with accrued interest as on date and costs, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2005 on the file of the Tribunal, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, interim stay granted shall stand automatically vacated. 16. In short, the Tribunal has passed the impugned Award in a cavalier fashion and in a perfunctory manner, without analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record in a proper perspective, on the well settled principles of law, and this has caused material and substantial prejudice to the parties concerned, resulting in miscarriage of justice and viewed in that perspective, this Court allows the Civil Revision Petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, by interfering with the Award passed by the Tribunal. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Award passed by the Tribunal, dated 23. 2006 in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2005 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this order. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to frame necessary triable issues/points for determination in regard to the controversies in the subject matter and to pass an Award afresh after analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also by providing due opportunity to the respective parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, if they so desire. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main M.C.O.P. No.140 of 2005 on its file within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to this Court without fail. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18. Further, the parties are directed to abide by the order of this Court passed in this Civil Revision Petition and to work out their remedies in the manner known to law, if so advised.