Judgment :- 1. C.M.A.No.540 of 2010 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation challenging the common award dated 31.7.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Sub Court), Madurai. 2. All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common award. The facts of all the cases are one and the same as they arise out of the same accident. Hence, all the 40 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and 20 Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and disposed off by this common judgement by consent as the most claimants have filed for withdrawal of award amount stating that they are in dire need of money. 3. The facts of all the cases in brief is as follows:- The unfortunate accident in all the cases happened on 28.2.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. on the Madurai-Theni Main Road. The accident happened between two buses. The first bus bearing Registration No.TCS 423 belongs to the Theni Melapettai Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Matriculation Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as “the school bus”) and the second bus bearing Registration No.TCB 4250 belongs to Pandian Roadways Corporation, now called as Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “PRC bus”). In the school bus large number of child students, teachers and staff approximately 68 in all, travelled. It is pertinent to point out that all the children were studying in the Second Standard at the time of accident and therefore, all the 68 passengers are not adults. The PRC bus was proceeding from Cholavandan to Usilampatti and started at 7.00 a.m. and reached the spot of accident at 8.00 a.m. The school bus started from Theni to Alagarkoil on an education tour and reached the spot of accident at about 8.00 a.m. Due to the accident both the vehicles suffered serious damages. Most of the passengers in both the vehicles suffered grievous injuries and some of them died. The version of the most of the claimants as per the claim petitions is almost the same wherein they have stated that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. Most of the passengers in both the vehicles suffered grievous injuries and some of them died. The version of the most of the claimants as per the claim petitions is almost the same wherein they have stated that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. The passengers, who travelled in the PRC Bus, to name a few, Mr.Pappu (petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.454 of 1998) examined as P.W.32; Mr.Pichaimani (petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.455 of 1998) examined as P.W.36 and Mr.Palani (petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.480 of 1998) examined as P.W.70; have stated in their claim petitions that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. In the same manner, the passengers, who travelled in the school bus, have also stated that both the drivers were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. The injured and the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed claims for compensation before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal tried all the claims together and disposed off the claims by a common award as above. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 81 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-447 were marked. On behalf of the PRC, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of the Insurance company, an official was examined as R.W.2. Ex.R-1 claim form furnished by the school authorities and Ex.R-2 copy of order passed under Workmens Compensation Act in the claim petition filed by the driver of the school bus were marked. 5. The stand of the PRC Bus is that the right front tyre of the school bus burst and the driver lost control and the said vehicle came and hit against the PRC bus resulting in the accident. According to the PRC, the negligence was on the part of the driver of the school bus that is the sole reason for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunals finding of negligence on both the drivers is inappropriate and contrary to facts. 6. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal relied upon the following evidence. The evidence of the conductor of the PRC bus, R.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.73, a passenger in the school bus who is also a staff of the school. Primarily these are the two witnesses. 6. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal relied upon the following evidence. The evidence of the conductor of the PRC bus, R.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.73, a passenger in the school bus who is also a staff of the school. Primarily these are the two witnesses. As far as documents are concerned, reliance was placed on Ex.P-1, the F.I.R.; Ex.P-3, the sketch; Ex.P-4, the observation mahazar and Ex.P-5, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report. Insofar as the oral evidence is concerned, R.W.1, the conductor stated that the school bus came from the opposite direction and hit the transport corporation bus. He, however, did not state that the school bus coming from the opposite direction suffered a tyre burst and consequently, the school bus hit the transport corporation bus. He also deposed that while he was issuing tickets to the passengers he heard a loud noise when the two vehicles hit each other while passing. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the evidence of the conductor is only to the effect that he is aware of the collision between two vehicles. His evidence does not clearly state as to who is actually responsible for the accident. The statement in Ex.P-1, F.I.R. that the school bus tyre burst and as a result hit the PRC bus, was negatived by the Tribunal by placing reliance on Ex.P-3, the sketch and Ex.P-5, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report. The Tribunal came to hold as per Ex.P-3 the accident happened in the middle of the road and Ex.P-5, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report shows a damage to the tyre consequent to the accident. There is no statement that the right side front tyre of the school bus was found burst. Even as per Ex.P-4, mahazar, it is recorded that the tyre was in a punctured state and it did not state that the tyre had burst. Therefore, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the recording in the F.I.R., that because of the burst of the right side front tyre of the school bus, the accident had happened is unacceptable. The Tribunal discussed the evidence of P.W.73, the passenger of the school bus and came to conclusion that the evidence of P.W.73 in chief and cross-examination is not very clear as to which driver was at fault. The Tribunal discussed the evidence of P.W.73, the passenger of the school bus and came to conclusion that the evidence of P.W.73 in chief and cross-examination is not very clear as to which driver was at fault. However, based on Ex.P-3 and the evidence of P.W.73, the Tribunal held that the accident happened in the middle of the road on a collision between two vehicles. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar – vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta and others reported in 11(2006) ACC 36 SC = (2006)3 Supreme Court Cases 242, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on both the drivers. 7. The Tribunal granted compensation in all the cases with interest at 7.5% per annum. As against the common award, no appeal has been filed by the insurance company with regard to their 50% liability as per the award. It is fairly stated by the learned counsel Mr.S.Natarajan, appearing for the insurance company that entire award amount payable by them has been deposited. It is the transport corporation which has filed the appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal, primarily on negligence attributed on the driver of the transport corporation bus. It is to be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation clearly stated that they are not seriously disputing the compensation awarded to the claimants. He pleaded that the appeals can be heard and disposed on a common issue regarding negligence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation, relied upon the F.I.R. recorded from the deceased driver of the transport corporation bus, who stated that the right side front tyre of the school bus burst and consequently, the school bus came and hit the transport corporation bus as the driver lost control. It will be pertinent to mention that the driver of the PRC bus expired on the day next to the accident. The appellant counsel further relied upon the charge sheet filed against the driver of the school bus to state that he alone was negligent. It is on record that the criminal court proceedings did not proceed any further, as admittedly, the driver of the school bus is absconding. Even the claim under the Workmens Compensation Act filed by the school driver was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, it was pleaded that the fault was entirely on the school bus driver. 9. It is on record that the criminal court proceedings did not proceed any further, as admittedly, the driver of the school bus is absconding. Even the claim under the Workmens Compensation Act filed by the school driver was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, it was pleaded that the fault was entirely on the school bus driver. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the F.I.R. given by the deceased driver of the PRC bus should be accepted. Furthermore, the observation mahazar clearly shows that the puncture of the right tyre which only goes to prove that the accident happened in the manner as stated in the F.I.R. The bus was overloaded by the 68 passengers and the bus was quite old and therefore, the possibility of school bus hitting the PRC bus after the tyre burst should be accepted. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants stated that most of the passengers in the school bus are the Second Standard students and are tiny tots and they cannot be equated to adults. Therefore, the plea of overloading will not apply in this case. The further plea that the age of the bus is also a cause for accident was not taken before the Tribunal. Claimants counsel relied upon the sketch to show that the accident happened only in the middle of the road and both the buses suffered almost equal damage. The Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report clearly state that besides other damages, the damage to the tyre is because of the impact. If that is so, the plea of the tyre burst prior to accident and that being the cause for the accident is misconceived. He pleaded that the accident happened in the year 1998 and for 11 long years, the claimants have been suffering without compensation. The appeal is filed on a hyper technical plea and should be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival parties and considering the plea for withdrawal of compensation consequent to the award passed after more than a decade from the date of accident, this Court is not inclined to delay the appeals any further as all necessary materials for disposing the appeals are before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for parties indicated their inclination to argue the appeals on merits to enable early disposal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for parties indicated their inclination to argue the appeals on merits to enable early disposal. 12. The Tribunal in this case, while stating that the evidence of R.W.1, the conductor, as unclear and not decisive, rejected the evidence of P.W.73, the occupant of the school bus/staff of the school stating that her version is contradictory. At one place she states that the driver of the school bus was rash and negligent and he caused the accident, however, in the cross examination, she states that the transport corporation bus came in the wrong side of the road and dashed against the school bus and caused the damage. She also states that the driver of the school bus was rash and negligent driving. The evidence of P.W.73 found to conflicting by the Tribunal only goes to show that even as per the statement of the witnesses to the scene of occurrence, it is clear that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving the vehicles and they hit each other in the middle of the road causing the accident. The Tribunal rightly concluded that the conductors evidence is of no relevance to decide the issue of negligence as it is vague and evasive. This brings us to the documentary evidence on record. 13. In the mahazar Ex.P-4 relating to the school bus, it is recorded as puncture of the right front tyre. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the mahazar, Ex.P-4 to confirm what is stated in FIR, Ex.P-1 that due to tyre burst of the school bus, driver lost control and hit the PRC bus. On the contrary, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report Ex.P-5 which was recorded on the day next to the date of accident (i.e.) on 1.3.1998, gives the details of the damages caused to the school bus and serial No.9 states that front right side tyre and tube damaged due to impact. It did not record a case of tyre burst. The Tribunal held that the mahazar records does not provide proof that it is a case of burst tyre. In view of the record which is not disputed, it cannot be safely concluded that there was a tyre burst and that caused the accident. Such a finding will be in the realm of conjecture or surmise. 14. The Tribunal held that the mahazar records does not provide proof that it is a case of burst tyre. In view of the record which is not disputed, it cannot be safely concluded that there was a tyre burst and that caused the accident. Such a finding will be in the realm of conjecture or surmise. 14. In view of the contradiction between the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal relying upon the sketch which clearly shows that both the vehicles hit each other in the middle of the road and thereafter fell aside, came to conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. This appears to be a logical conclusion. It does not appear perverse. 15. A conjoint reading of the oral and documentary evidence would clearly go to show that neither the transport corporation or the owner of the school bus were able to prove clearly as to how and in what manner the accident happened and who was actually negligent and responsible for the accident. The only person who was examined, viz., P.W.73 puts the blame on both drivers. Her version is supported by the documentary evidence, viz., Ex.P-3, the sketch, which clearly goes to show that both the vehicles collided with each other in the middle of the road. The statement of the deceased driver recorded as FIR cannot form the sole basis for holding that the school bus driver was negligent. 16. Reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in Bijoy Kumar Dugar – vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta and others reported in (2006)3 Supreme Court Cases 242 to canvass composite negligence. From the facts of the present case, the finding of the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence cannot be found fault. It stands to reason that in the absence of specific evidence to show that the driver of the school bus alone was rash and negligent, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the drivers of both vehicles were rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. 17. It stands to reason that in the absence of specific evidence to show that the driver of the school bus alone was rash and negligent, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the drivers of both vehicles were rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. 17. It is pertinent to point out that the accident happened in the morning at 8.00 a.m. and therefore, unless it is emphatically proved that there was a tyre burst, it cannot be said that the driver of one vehicle alone is at fault, particularly when the spot of accident is on the middle of the highway road. The statement given in FIR by the deceased driver should be supported by other material evidence. In this case, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report does not support the statement contained in FIR that it is a case of tyre burst. It has been clearly recorded in Ex.P-5 that the damage to the front right tyre of the bus is due to impact (i.e.) between two heavy vehicles. The conductor also does not speak about the tyre burst. All the claimants in their claim petitions have stated that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence stands to reason and is confirmed. 18. In the light of overwhelming evidence and records and in the absence of specific evidence let in by the transport department to prove that the driver of the school bus alone was rash and negligent, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence stands justified. 19. One other plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the school bus is absconding and no step was taken to examine him. To this contention, it is stated that the insurance company has taken steps to issue summon to the said driver to appear before the court. The said driver is still absconding. His whereabouts are not known. The claim filed by him under Workmens Compensation Act was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Even if the driver of the school bus is brought before the Tribunal and examined it is not likely to improve the case any further as the documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the accident happened in the middle of the road establishing equal negligence. The claim filed by him under Workmens Compensation Act was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Even if the driver of the school bus is brought before the Tribunal and examined it is not likely to improve the case any further as the documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the accident happened in the middle of the road establishing equal negligence. The Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Report does not support the case of the transport corporation that the accident happened due to tyre burst as recorded in the FIR. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants primary evidence in support of the appeal is the FIR, Ex.P-1, but, without any supporting material or evidence to support the facts contained therein. This Court, therefore is not inclined to accept such plea and to reverse the finding of the Tribunal on negligence. 21. On the quantum of compensation, no appeal has been filed by the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation is not able to show any specific case of exorbitant compensation by the Tribunal. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the quantum of compensation as it would affect the right of the parties, if they are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. No plea with regard to quantum of compensation has been addressed by the appellants counsel. 22. In view of the above, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The accident happened in the year 1998 and the award was passed in 2009 after more than 11 years. The claimants are anxious to receive the fruits of the award. They cannot be made to wait any longer. It is stated that the insurance company has already deposited its share of the compensation awarded and it is the transport corporation which has to deposit the amount and for this six weeks time is granted as prayed for. On such deposit the major claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal and for minors as per order of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.