JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company/2nd respondent as against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2002, made in MACTOP. No. 494 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Vellore. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased, by name, R.Srinivasan, was working as Heavy Passenger Vehicle driver at V.R.M. Bus Company. On the date of accident, i.e., on 18.12.1996, at about 6.30 p.m., when he was driving his company bus bearing Registration No. T.N. 23.B.2125 from east to west at M.C. Road near Kattukollai near Pallikonda, the driver employed by the respondent Transport Corporation, was driving T.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No. T.N.0.N.775 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus driven by the victim. Due to the strong collision, the victim sustained compound injuries and died on 28.06.1997. 3. The claim application was filed by the claimants, who are the LRs of the deceased Mr. Srinivasan claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal, after examination of witnesses and perusal of the documents, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, payable equally by the appellant Insurance Company and the 7th respondent Transport Corporation. 4. The appellant herein has come forward with the present appeal based on the following grounds: (i) The Tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation against the appellant after having held that the driver of the 7th respondent herein alone was rash and negligent. After having found that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 7th respondent, the tribunal ought not to have made the appellant liable to pay the compensation, when the insured/owner of VRM Bus company was not impleaded as one of the respondents. (ii) When the Tribunal, after framing necessary issues based on the pleadings of the claimants, rendered a finding only against the driver of the respondent Transport Corporation, ought not to have made the appellant herein liable to pay any compensation. (iii) Further, in the claim petition, the claimants have alleged negligence only against the driver of the Transport Corporation. Hence, the apportionment of the compensation payable at the ratio of Rs.50:50 between the State Transport Corporation Ltd., and the appellant herein, cannot be made. 5. (iii) Further, in the claim petition, the claimants have alleged negligence only against the driver of the Transport Corporation. Hence, the apportionment of the compensation payable at the ratio of Rs.50:50 between the State Transport Corporation Ltd., and the appellant herein, cannot be made. 5. Heard the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6/claimants and the learned counsel for the 7th respondent/Transport Corporation. 6. On a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that on behalf of the claimants, to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Transport Corporation, P.W.2, who was a passenger in the private bus driven by the deceased was examined, and he had stated that on 18.12.1996, at 6.30 p.m., when the deceased was driving the bus and proceeding towards Kandaneri, the 7th respondent's bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the private bus. The Tribunal found that there was no contra evidence to disprove the manner of accident. Since there was no contra evidence regarding the manner of the accident, the Tribunal was of the view that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation/7threspondent, the accident had occurred and answered point No. 1, namely, Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/Transport Corporation's driver, in favour of the claimants. 7. Based on the above finding, the appellant herein has argued that though the tribunal has taken the view fixing the liability on the driver of the Transport Corporation/7th respondent from the oral evidence of the PW2, at paragraph No.10 of the judgment, the Tribunal has held as hereunder: "10. ...applying the second schedule under Section 163 (A) Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, the amount comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. After deducting 1/3 lumpsum amount, the award is fixed as Rs.2,88,000/-. The deceased was a worker. Therefore, in my view 50% must be paid by the Insurance Company, and the remaining the 50% must be paid by the first respondent... ...applying the second schedule under Section 163 (A) Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, the amount comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. After deducting 1/3 lumpsum amount, the award is fixed as Rs.2,88,000/-. The deceased was a worker. Therefore, in my view 50% must be paid by the Insurance Company, and the remaining the 50% must be paid by the first respondent... Further, the discussion made in the judgment was brought to the notice of this Court, which says that, at the time of accident, deceased vehicle had been insured by R2 Company (appellant herein) is not in dispute, which had issued a policy for the workers and therefore, 50% must be paid by the Insurance Company and the remaining is payable by the Transport Corporation. According to the appellant, based on the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 7th respondent, when the entire liability has to be fixed on the 7th respondent, the liability to pay compensation at 50% determined by the tribunal is absurd. 8. From a perusal of the FIR, it is seen that, “TAMIL”. This is the complaint given by the passenger of the Transport Corporation/seventh respondent. Based on the information given by the passenger of Thiruvallur Transport Corporation bus, the FIR had been registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and the finding of the tribunal is also that it is only, the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, who was rash and negligent, due to which the accident had occurred. But only in the finding portion, after verifying that the deceased is a worker in the company and the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company, 50% liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company. The argument of the appellant herein is that when the negligence of the first respondent was clearly proved by Ex.A1 FIR and also the evidence of PW2, the Insurance Company cannot be placed under any liability to pay compensation at 50% which is not a proper one. 9. The argument of the appellant herein is that when the negligence of the first respondent was clearly proved by Ex.A1 FIR and also the evidence of PW2, the Insurance Company cannot be placed under any liability to pay compensation at 50% which is not a proper one. 9. Hence, on perusal of the evidence and the documents filed before the tribunal and also the arguments of the appellant herein, it is found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the seventh respondent herein and the liability to pay the compensation fixed on this appellant is not proper and this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree of the tribunal, insofar as it fastens the liability to pay compensation at 50% on the appellant is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside with regard to the 50% of liability fixed on the appellant and the amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by the appellant is also to be refunded. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 11. The Transport Corporation/7th respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.2,88,000/- (100%) along with interest and costs, as determined by the claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if, any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the claimants, as per the apportionment of the Tribunal, through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter.