JUDGMENT : D. Hariparanthaman, J. These civil miscellaneous appeals are preferred by the insurance company against the common judgment and decree dated 8.2.1999 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 492 of 1997, 70 of 1994 and 1 of 1996 respectively, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: (a) The respondents in these appeals are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai in the respective claim petitions. (b) The marriage between the appellant in C.M.A. (MD) No. 2005 of 2009 and Muthupalaniappan took place on 5.9.1993. (c) On the fateful day of 6.10.1993, Muthupalaniappan drove Ambassador car bearing registration No. TN 53-5856, which was a tourist car belonging to his brother-in-law, from Trichy to Pudukkottai, after attending the feast that was organised at the palace of Pudukkottai Maharaja. Along with him, his father, mother, wife and his family friend one Gopal also travelled in the car. According to the respondents, when the car came near Melur, the front tyre of the car burst, resulting in loss of control of the vehicle and the vehicle crossed the right side mud portion of the road and hit against a banian tree. Due to the accident, Muthupalaniappan as well as Gopal sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Pudukkottai. On the advice of the doctors at Government Headquarters Hospital, Pudukkottai, Muthupalaniappan was taken to Madurai for further treatment. But however, he succumbed to injuries on the way to Madurai. Gopal was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Pudukkottai itself and took treatment as inpatient from 6.10.1993 to 30.10.1993. Due to the accident, Gopal suffered 60 per cent permanent disability. The car involved in the accident was insured with the appellant insurance company. (d) Thereafter, Gopal, family friend of deceased, filed a petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 70 of 1994 u/s 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai, against the owner of the car and the appellant insurance company, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. In the claim application, he pleaded that he was 50 years old and was employed as a teacher in Kalaimagal Primary School at Pudukkottai. Further, the accident was caused due to the bursting of the right front tyre of the car. 5,00,000. In the claim application, he pleaded that he was 50 years old and was employed as a teacher in Kalaimagal Primary School at Pudukkottai. Further, the accident was caused due to the bursting of the right front tyre of the car. Due to the front tyre burst, the driver lost control and car hit a banian tree. He further pleaded that due to the accident, he sustained 60 per cent permanent disability. Before accident, he was employed as a teacher for 27 years and was receiving a sum of Rs. 2,755 per month as his salary. He was living with his wife, children and his aged mother. (e) Subsequently, Radha, wife of the deceased, filed a petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1 of 1996 u/s 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai against the owner of the car and the appellant insurance company, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, she pleaded that she was 21 years old. At the time of accident, the car was in the process of overtaking a bullock-cart. By the time the front tyre of the car burst out and that resulted in the loss of control and that the car hit a banian tree, which resulted in the death of her husband. She further pleaded that her marriage with the deceased took place just a month back. At the time of accident, her husband was 24 years old and he owned a Computer Training Centre at Pudukkottai and earned a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month. (f) Likewise, the father and mother of the deceased, viz., Balasubramanian and Janaki, filed a petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 492 of 1997 u/s 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai, against the owner of the car and the appellant insurance company, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. In the claim petition, they pleaded that their son was 25 years old. At the time of accident, the car overtook a bullock-cart and the bullocks got scared and crossed the car. In order to avert an accident, driver swerved to further right and in that process, the car hit a banian tree, resulting in the death of their son. In the claim petition, they pleaded that their son was 25 years old. At the time of accident, the car overtook a bullock-cart and the bullocks got scared and crossed the car. In order to avert an accident, driver swerved to further right and in that process, the car hit a banian tree, resulting in the death of their son. (g) The respondent No. 1, viz., Sankara Narayanan in all these appeals is the owner of the car. He is the brother of Radha, i.e., the wife of the deceased. (h) In reply to the claim petitions filed before the Tribunal, the insurance company filed written statements refuting the allegations. It was pleaded in the written statement that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, who was none else than the brother-in-law of the owner of the car. It was stated that at the time of accident, the car was in the process of overtaking a bullock-cart and on seeing a bus belonging to Marudhupandiar Transport Corporation (MPTC) coming from the opposite direction, driver lost control and diverted the car to the right side of the road and dashed against a banian tree. Further, the insurance company describes the front tyre burst leading to the accident as a cock-and-bull story. It was further pleaded that the deceased drove the tourist taxi without any valid licence. A tourist taxi should not be used as a private vehicle. At the time of accident, the tourist car was driven by the brother-in-law of the owner of the vehicle for private purpose. The deceased driver drove the car without necessary badge to drive it and also he did not observe the traffic rules. (i) All the three claim petitions were tried together. The respondent No. 1 in the claim petitions, viz., Sankara Narayanan, the owner of the vehicle, had remained ex parte. In the joint trial, 3 witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants therein as PW 1 to PW 3. The first witness was Gopal, the family friend of the deceased. The second witness was Gopannan, the doctor who issued the disability certificate. The third witness was Radha, the wife of the deceased. 12 documents were marked as Exhs. Al to A12. Exh. A1-copy of the first information report; Exh. A2-wound certificate issued to Gopal; Exh. The first witness was Gopal, the family friend of the deceased. The second witness was Gopannan, the doctor who issued the disability certificate. The third witness was Radha, the wife of the deceased. 12 documents were marked as Exhs. Al to A12. Exh. A1-copy of the first information report; Exh. A2-wound certificate issued to Gopal; Exh. A3-copy of the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 401 of 1993; Exh. A4-copy of the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector; Exh. A5-copy of the sketch of the accident spot; Exh. A6-salary certificate; Exh. A7-disability certificate issued by PW 2 to PW 1; Exh. A8-X-ray report of PW 1; Exh. A9-wedding invitation of PW 3 with the deceased; Exh. A10-wound certificate of the deceased; Exh. A11-death certificate of the deceased and Exh. A12-driving licence of the deceased. (j) On behalf of the insurance company, three witnesses were examined as RW 1 to RW 3. The first witness was a Junior Assistant working in the Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai. The second witness was an Assistant Administrative Officer of the insurance company. The first witness was again examined as third witness. 4 documents were marked as Exh. B1 to Exh. B4. Exh. B1 is the statement of Gopal given to the Investigating Officer of the insurance company. Exh. B2 is the statement of Radha given to the Investigating Officer of the insurance company. Exh. B3 is the copy of the insurance policy and Exh. B4 is the order issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai in C.O.P. No. 52 of 1994, in which petition has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the insurance company. Further, two documents were marked as court documents. (k) Considering all the above facts, the Tribunal passed a common order dated 8.2.1999 in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 492 of 1997, 70 of 1994 and 1 of 1996 holding that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal rejected the plea of bursting of front tyre as a reason for the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of the driver of the car. The Tribunal also held that there was no bar for using a tourist taxi for private purpose and that the driver had an effective driving licence. Since it was not used as a tourist taxi, the possession of badge was not relevant. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of the driver of the car. The Tribunal also held that there was no bar for using a tourist taxi for private purpose and that the driver had an effective driving licence. Since it was not used as a tourist taxi, the possession of badge was not relevant. While holding so, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,895 as compensation for the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 70 of 1994, viz., Gopal; Rs. 1,08,000 as compensation for the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 492 of 1997, viz., the mother of the deceased and Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1 of 1996, viz., Radha, wife of the deceased. White the aforesaid claim petitions were pending before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased died. (l) Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed a civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A. (MD) No. 2003 of 1999 against the order in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 492 of 1997; C.M.A. (MD) No. 2004 of 1999 against the order in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 70 of 1994 and C.M.A. (MD) No. 2005 of 1999 against the order in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1 of 1996. During the pendency of these appeals, the mother of the deceased also died, i.e., the respondent No. 1 in the C.M.A. No. 2003 of 1999 died and her legal representative by name Shanmugam was brought on record by an order dated 24.10.2000 in C.M.P. No. 13858 of 2000 as respondent No. 3. But, however, the said Shanmugam also died and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in C.M.A. (MD) No. 2003 of 1999. 2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company strenuously contended that having held that deceased driver was negligent in driving the car and caused the accident, the Tribunal was not correct in directing them to pay compensation to the respective respondents. It was elaborated that the deceased driver being a tortfeasor, compensation could not be awarded for his own wrong. In this regard, he relied on a number of judgments. Secondly, it was contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased driver had an effective driving licence to drive the tourist taxi. It was elaborated that the deceased driver being a tortfeasor, compensation could not be awarded for his own wrong. In this regard, he relied on a number of judgments. Secondly, it was contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased driver had an effective driving licence to drive the tourist taxi. The learned counsel for the appellant did not question the quantum of compensation in the appeals and he confined to the liability. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the award and decree could be sustained by this court, if this court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the bursting of the front tyre of the car and that the deceased driver was not negligent. In this regard, the learned counsel took me through the award and the deposition of witnesses, more particularly, PW1, PW3 and RW2 and Exh. A4, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, to establish that the accident was caused due to bursting of the front tyre of the car. Learned counsel further submitted that even the evidence produced on behalf of the appellant insurance company before the Tribunal made it clear that the deceased driver possessed effective driving licence to drive a car. 5. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In these appeals, three issues arise for consideration. They are: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in awarding compensation to the claimants who were occupants of the car after recording a finding that the deceased driver of the car was negligent and responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the award of the Tribunal could be sustained if it is found that the accident was caused due to bursting of front right side tyre of the car and not due to negligent driving of the driver of the car? and (iii) Whether the deceased driver was in possession of effective driving licence to drive the car? Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) are taken together. Issue Nos. (i) and (ii): 7. It is true that the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased driver and he was responsible for the accident. The said finding was arrived at based on the evidence of PW1, PW3, Exhs. A1, A5, B1 and B2. (i) and (ii) are taken together. Issue Nos. (i) and (ii): 7. It is true that the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased driver and he was responsible for the accident. The said finding was arrived at based on the evidence of PW1, PW3, Exhs. A1, A5, B1 and B2. The Tribunal rested its findings solely based on Exhs. B1 and B2. In Exhs. B1 and B2, it was recorded by the Investigating Officer of the insurance company that while overtaking a bullock-cart, a bus came from opposite direction and in that process, the car went to the right side of the road and hit a banian tree. According to the Tribunal, since PW1 and PW3 did not say in those statements that the accident was due to tyre burst and those documents having been proved, it could not be held that the accident was caused due to the front tyre burst. But the Tribunal was not correct in its conclusion. The Tribunal failed to note that the contents of Exhs. B1 and B2 were not proved. It is true that documents Exhs. B1 and B2 were marked through PW1 and PW3 respectively by appellant at the time of cross-examination and appellant did not choose to examine the Investigating Officer. Thirumavalavan to whom the statements were said to have been given by PW1 and PW3. PW1 and PW3 stated that the Investigating Officer of the appellant insurance company Thirumavalavan came and inquired about the accident and they narrated the accident and he wrote something and obtained their signature. The deposition made by PW1 during cross-examination reads as follows. (Omitted as in vernacular) Likewise, PW3 deposed during cross-examination in the following words: (Omitted as in vernacular) Thus, it was made clear that Exhs. B1 and B2 were written by the Investigating Officer of the insurance company and the signatures of PW1 and PW3 were obtained. The fact that Exhs. Bl and B2 were not written by PW1 and PW3 was not properly considered and appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. 8. Both PW1 and PW3 further stated during cross-examination that it was not correct to state that the accident was caused due to the loss of control of car when the deceased driver attempted to avert an accident with the bus that was coming from opposite direction, when he overtook a bullock-cart. 8. Both PW1 and PW3 further stated during cross-examination that it was not correct to state that the accident was caused due to the loss of control of car when the deceased driver attempted to avert an accident with the bus that was coming from opposite direction, when he overtook a bullock-cart. They also stated that it was not correct to state that the accident was not due to the front tyre burst. The relevant passage from the cross-examination of PW1 and PW3 is extracted hereunder: Cross-examination of PW1: (Omitted as in vernacular) Cross-examination of PW3: (Omitted as in vernacular) 9. But the Tribunal simply proceeded that since Exhs. B1 and B2 were marked through PW1 and PW3 respectively, suffice it to come to the conclusion that the accident caused was not due to the bursting of the front tyre. However, the aforesaid evidence of PW1 and PW3 makes it clear that Exhs. B1 and B2 were written by the Investigating Officer of the appellant insurance company and those statements were not written by PW1 and PW3. They categorically denied during cross-examination that the accident was caused due to loss of control, when the driver attempted to avert an accident while overtaking a bullock-cart. They also categorically stated during cross-examination that it was not correct to state that the accident was caused not due to the bursting of the front tyre of the car. The appellant insurance company did not choose to examine the Investigating Officer, who wrote the statements, which are marked as Exhs. Bl and B2. Furthermore, RW 2, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the appellant insurance company, did not state anything as to how the accident occurred. Absolutely he did not speak anything about the manner as to how the accident occurred. More importantly, the Tribunal failed to take into account Exh. A4, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, which is the clinching documentary evidence that shows that the front tyre of the car got burst. Exh. A4 is the printed form containing 21 clauses. Clause 13 relates to details regarding damage sustained by the vehicle due to accident. That clause refers to various damage and one among them was the right side front tyre burst. Secondly, clause 19 relates to condition of tyres. Clause 19 is as follows: (19) Condition of tyres: Front right side tyre burst and damaged. Clause 13 relates to details regarding damage sustained by the vehicle due to accident. That clause refers to various damage and one among them was the right side front tyre burst. Secondly, clause 19 relates to condition of tyres. Clause 19 is as follows: (19) Condition of tyres: Front right side tyre burst and damaged. But the learned Tribunal failed to consider the relevant material, namely, Exh. A4, nowhere in the discussion. 10. Thus, it is proved that there was bursting of front tyre of the car. While driving, once the right side front tyre burst that would lead to the loss of control of the vehicle. It was an admitted fact that the deceased driver attempted to overtake a bullock-cart and at that time, the tyre burst took place. It was the case of the appellant insurance company that at the time of accident, a bus came from the opposite direction. However, the insurance company is not able to give the details of the alleged bus that came from the opposite direction. These are all the aggravative factors. Already the driver lost control due to tyre burst and the car went to the right side of the road and crossed the mud portion and thereafter, hit a banian tree. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence, more particularly Exh. A4, would make it clear that the driver was not responsible for the accident. The driver could not be stated to be negligent in causing the accident. The accident was due to the bursting of front right side tyre. 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Tribunal failed to take into account Exh. A4, documentary evidence establishing the fact that there was front tyre burst. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, while the appellant insurance company examined the Assistant Administrative Officer, it failed to examine the Investigating Officer of the insurance company, who is said to have recorded Exhs. B1 and B2. The learned counsel was correct in submitting that the contents of Exhs. B1 and B2 were not proved. PW1 and PW3 only stated that the Investigating Officer of the appellant insurance company came and inquired of them as to how the accident occurred and he wrote a statement and obtained their signatures. They also categorically deposed during cross-examination that the statement in Exhs. B1 and B2 were not proved. PW1 and PW3 only stated that the Investigating Officer of the appellant insurance company came and inquired of them as to how the accident occurred and he wrote a statement and obtained their signatures. They also categorically deposed during cross-examination that the statement in Exhs. B1 and B2 to the effect that accident was due to the loss of control of the car, when the driver attempted to avert an accident with a bus coming in the opposite direction, while he attempted to overtake a bullock-cart was not correct. They also categorically deposed during cross-examination that the accident was due to bursting of the right front side tyre of the car. 12. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was not due to tyre burst, is not correct and on the other hand, the accident was due to the front tyre burst. The main contention of the appellant was that the accident was due to negligence of the deceased driver and hence, the claimants are not entitled to compensation as the driver was a tortfeasor. In this regard, he relied on various judgments. Since I am of the view that the said findings are not supported by any material and the accident was due to bursting of the front right side tyre of the car, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant fail and those judgments are not applicable and, therefore, those judgments are not dealt with. 13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants that by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the appeals preferred by the insurance company, this court could very well sustain the award of the Tribunal, if this court comes to the conclusion based on the materials available on record that the accident was caused due to bursting of the front right side tyre of the car and not due to negligence of the driver. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court could enhance the compensation in the appeal filed by the insurance company, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not represent just compensation as contemplated under the Act. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court could enhance the compensation in the appeal filed by the insurance company, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not represent just compensation as contemplated under the Act. By applying the same principle, I am of the view that the award could be sustained as I recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to bursting of front right side tyre of the car and not due to negligence of the driver. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the relevant para from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (7) Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act'), there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is -it should be 'just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which provides that 'the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act'. Other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which provides that 'the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act'. Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed. Accordingly, issue Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered. Issue No. (iii): 14. The third issue is as to whether the Tribunal was correct in recording a finding that the deceased was in possession of an effective driving licence to drive a car. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company was that since the car which was involved in the accident was a tourist taxi, the deceased driver should have possessed the badge for driving the tourist taxi, as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. It is not in dispute that the car that was involved in the accident was a tourist taxi. It is also not in dispute that the car was not operated as a tourist taxi and it was used for private purpose. If the car was used as a tourist taxi and the deceased driver drove the car as a tourist taxi, then the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have some force. But it is not so. RW2, the Assistant Administrative Officer of appellant insurance company, admitted during cross-examination that there is no prohibition for using a tourist taxi for personal use as per the policy conditions. It was also admitted by RW2 that the policy condition does not require badge and that it only stated effective driving licence. In this regard, the deposition made by RW2 during cross-examination is extracted hereunder: (Omitted as in vernacular) 16. Furthermore, the appellant insurance company examined a Junior Assistant of the Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai as RW1 and official documents were marked as Exhs. X1 and X2. RW1 was examined again as RW3. He categorically stated that if a tourist taxi was used for private purpose, the driver need not have a badge. The relevant deposition of RW3 in this regard is extracted hereunder: (Omitted as in vernacular) 17. The aforesaid deposition was considered by the Tribunal. X1 and X2. RW1 was examined again as RW3. He categorically stated that if a tourist taxi was used for private purpose, the driver need not have a badge. The relevant deposition of RW3 in this regard is extracted hereunder: (Omitted as in vernacular) 17. The aforesaid deposition was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in para 17 of its award, recorded as follows: (Omitted as in vernacular) 18. It is not in dispute that as per Exh. A12, the deceased driver possessed effective driving licence to drive car. The case of appellant insurance company initially was that the driver of the car did not possess licence at all. Later, according to the appellant, the deceased driver could not drive tourist taxi without proper endorsement on the driving licence (badge) and as there was no endorsement, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. It is found on facts that even RW2 and RW1/RW3 admitted that there is no bar to use tourist taxi for private purpose and in that event, endorsement on the driving licence to drive tourist taxi is not required. Therefore. I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, based on the evidence of the appellant insurance company. As stated above, the quantum of compensation is not questioned at the time of argument. In view of the aforesaid findings, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.