Judgment : 1. The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.606 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.606 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/-from the respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 05.09.2005, at about 01.45 p.m., the driver of 'Malar Call Taxi' bearing registration No.TN38 U4912, belonging to the petitioner herein, was driving the car from Marudhamalai Temple, along with passengers, after offering darshan in the temple, and it was driven cautiously and at a moderate speed, on the extreme left side of the Marudamalai Road and when the car was proceeding from west to east and near Bimetal Bearing Company, the second respondent's private bus bearing registration No.TN38 S9669, which was coming from the opposite direction, on the same road and driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came on the centre of the road and dashed against the call taxi and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the front portion of the car (front side lights, glass etc., broken), front right side door, back right side sliding door, front left side door were fully damaged and the front side bumper was dented. The dash board was damaged and the chassis was bent. Hence, the petitioner had filed the claim petition. 4. The third respondent Insurance Company, in their counter statement, had submitted that the claim is bad for non-joinder of the driver and insurer of the call taxi bearing registration No.TN38 U4912, alleged to have been involved in the accident. It was submitted that the accident was not caused due to any rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent and that it was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and as such contributory negligence has to be attributed on the car driver. The averments made in the claim petition regarding nature of damages was also not admitted. The averments made in the claim petition regarding nature of damages was also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the second respondent's bus damage was caused under a valid policy of insurance and also to prove that the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident had valid driving licences to drive their vehicles at the time of accident. It was submitted that with respect to property damages, the liability of the third respondent is restricted to the tune of only Rs.6,000/- as the policy is an Act Policy. It was contended that the claim was excessive and without any merits. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. What is the quantum of damages, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 6. In the same accident, two other claim petitions had been filed by one Esakkimuthu, driver of the car and one Krishnaveni, passenger of the car, in M.C.O.P.Nos.344 and 343 of 2006 respectively, against the same respondents, claiming a compensation for the injuries sustained by them. On the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded. The petitioners in M.C.O.P.Nos.344, 343 and 606 of 2006 were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively, one Dr.Senthilkumar was examined as P.W.4, one Srinivasan was examined as P.W.5 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17 namely FIR, charge sheet, M.V.I's.Reports, copy of criminal Court Judgment, driving licence, wound certificates, discharge summaries, medical receipts, receipts issued for servicing of car, R.C.Book of Car, disability certificate, X'ray and salary certificate. On the respondents' side, one B.Bose of the third respondent's firm was examined as R.W.1 and one document namely insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 7. On the respondents' side, one B.Bose of the third respondent's firm was examined as R.W.1 and one document namely insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 7. P.W.1 Esakkimuthu had adduced evidence that on 05.09.2005, at about 12.00 a.m., he was driving a tourist car bearing registration No.TN38 U4912, on Marudhamalai Road, from west to east and when the car was near Bimetal Bearing Company, the second respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN38 S9669, which was coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the car and caused the accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P6. 8. Though it was contended on the respondents' side that the first respondent had not been rash and negligent in his driving and that he had not caused the accident, the Tribunal had observed that the respondents had neither examined the first respondent or any other independent witnesses to prove their contentions. On scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P2, it is seen that FIR and charge sheet had been filed against the first respondent. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the first respondent had admitted his guilt and paid the fine amount before the criminal Court. On scrutiny of Exs.P3 and P4, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the vehicles involved in the accident. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidences, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent. 9. P.W.3 the petitioner had adduced evidence that he was running a travels agency in the name and style of 'Malar Call Taxi' and that due to the accident, the front glass, steering box, head light, dash board of his car bearing registration No.TN38 U4912, had been damaged and that the doors and chassis had also been bent. He deposed that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had inspected his vehicle and given his report as per Ex.P3. He deposed that the receipts for service charges incurred for setting right his car, was marked as Ex.P13 and that RC book of the car had been marked as Ex.P14. 10. He deposed that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had inspected his vehicle and given his report as per Ex.P3. He deposed that the receipts for service charges incurred for setting right his car, was marked as Ex.P13 and that RC book of the car had been marked as Ex.P14. 10. P.W.5 Srinivasan had adduced evidence that he is running a service company in the name and style of 'New Motor Maruthi Service Centre' at Muthukumar Nagar Main Road, Viswanathapuram and that he had brought the car bearing registration No.TN38 U4912, which was involved in the accident on 05.09.2005 to his workshop. He deposed that on examination he had found that the front portion of the car had been fully damaged and that the side door, front door, top, right and left door glasses, front panel chassis, dash board and steering engine, had been damaged and that Rs.40,000/-was spent for setting right the defects. In support of his evidence, had marked Ex.P13 receipts. 11. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P3, had observed that the car had been extensively damaged. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P3 and P13, had awarded a sum of Rs.39,768/- as compensation to the petitioner for the damages of his car and directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay the said compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation with costs, within a period of two months from the date of it's order. 12. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal ought to have seen that no documentary evidence had been adduced by the claimant to prove the manner in which the claimant had incurred any expenses towards damages and that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the quantum without any basis. It was contended that the Tribunal did not consider the policy conditions of insurance and had failed to consider that the liability of the Insurance Company as per the insurance policy, under Section 147 of M.V.Act, was only to the extent of Rs.6,000/- only. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. It was contended that the Tribunal did not consider the policy conditions of insurance and had failed to consider that the liability of the Insurance Company as per the insurance policy, under Section 147 of M.V.Act, was only to the extent of Rs.6,000/- only. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. The highly competent counsel for the respondent has submitted that the compensation has been claimed on the basis of service bills for setting right the damages of the car, which is marked as Ex.P13 and therefore the Tribunal had passed the said award. Further, the owner of the car had adduced evidence and narrated the type of damages and mode of repairs, spare parts particulars and service particulars. 15. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any short comings in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum. This Court is of the further view that the claimant had marked Ex.P13 regarding service charges and spare parts and also adduced evidence relating to the said exhibit. Further, P.W.5, who is running a car service centre had also adduced evidence and disclosed the damages and money spent for setting right the damages of the car. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 16. As per the Court records, it is seen that the Insurance Company had already deposited a portion of the compensation amount. Now, this Court directs the Insurance Company to deposit the remaining compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.606 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 17. However, the appellant is at liberty to receive the excess compensation amount of a sum of Rs.33,768/- paid from the owner of the vehicle, with proportionate interest thereon, in the same proceedings, considering the fact that the liability of the Insurance Company, is only for a sum of Rs.6,000/- as per the Act Policy. 18. 17. However, the appellant is at liberty to receive the excess compensation amount of a sum of Rs.33,768/- paid from the owner of the vehicle, with proportionate interest thereon, in the same proceedings, considering the fact that the liability of the Insurance Company, is only for a sum of Rs.6,000/- as per the Act Policy. 18. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.606 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.606 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.