JUDGMENT : 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the award, dated 26.04.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II/Additional District Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The first respondent and others had laid the claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle accident, which took place on 15.05.2004, involving two vehicles. According to the first respondent and the other claimants, on 15.05.2004, at about 07.30 p.m., they were travelling in a Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN74 A8688, belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent/Insurance Company, from Kurumpanai to Kanyakumari and while the above said Maxi Cab Van was reaching Ganapathipuram Bus Stand, its driver was driving the vehicle on the left side of the road towards the eastern side and at that time, a Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181, belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the revision petitioner, came from the opposite direction driven by its driver at a high-speed and rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and as a result of which, the Maxi Cab Van hit the rear side of the Tempo Van and lost its control and hit against the neem tree, resulting the first respondent and other claimants sustaining injuries over their body and accordingly, the first respondent and other claimants had levied the claim petitions before the Tribunal impleading the owner and the Insurance Company of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181, as the respondents 1 and 2 and the owner and the Insurance Company of the Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN74 A8688 as the respondents 3 and 4 in the M.C.O.P. Cases. 3. As could be seen from the case of the first respondent herein, the case had been projected that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181 in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, sought for compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. As could be seen from the case of the first respondent herein, the case had been projected that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181 in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, sought for compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The revision petitioner has taken the plea that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181 and on the other hand, according to the revision petitioner, considering the M.V. Report of the vehicles concerned in the accident, the same would go to expose that the driver of the Maxi Cab Van is solely responsible for the accident and furthermore, it is pleaded by the revision petitioner that in any event, as two vehicles are involved in the accident, the Court should hold that both the vehicles are responsible for the accident and accordingly, inter alia sought for the dismissal of the claim petitions laid by the first respondent and the other claimants. 5. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181 and accordingly, fixed the liability on the owner and the Insurance Company of the above said vehicle and arriving at the compensation to which the first respondent and the other claimants are entitled to, thereby passed the award in favour of the first respondent and the other claimants and also directed that the award amount should be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 in the M.C.O. Ps., jointly and severally as determined by it. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 6. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 6. The only point that has been urged in this civil revision petition is that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the responsibility for the accident on the driver of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181, without assessing the materials placed on record in the right perspective and it is contended that considering the damage caused to the rear side of the Tempo Van, it is put forth that it is only the driver of the Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN74 A8688, who is responsible for the accident and no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN74 5181 merely because the driver of the Maxi Cab Van had lodged the F.I.R., in the matter and furthermore, it is also put forth that at least, the Tribunal should have fixed the liability on the both drivers of the Maxi Cab Van as well as the Tempo Van for the accident and accordingly, prayed for the revision of the award. 7. As regards the establishment of which vehicle is responsible for the accident, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2004, the first respondent has been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1, in his evidence, has deposed that on 15.05.2004, while he was travelling in the Maxi Cab Van from Kurumpanai to Kanyakumari, at that time, the Tempo Van belonging to the second respondent and insured with the revision petitioner herein / Insurance Company, came from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, caused the accident by hitting against the Maxi Cab Van and therefore, only the driver of the Tempo Van is solely responsible for the accident. To buttress his above said evidence, the F.I.R., copy is relied upon marked as Ex.P1. To buttress his above said evidence, the F.I.R., copy is relied upon marked as Ex.P1. On a perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R., had been lodged by the driver of the Maxi Cab Van and therein also, it has been clearly averred that while the Maxi Cab Van was proceeding at the accident spot on the left side of the road towards eastern side, the Tempo Van came from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and carelessly and thereby, swerved the vehicle to the right side and resultantly, the Maxi Cab Van hit the right rear side of the Tempo Van and due to the said impact, lost the control and dashed against the neem tree and accordingly, from the averments contained in Ex.P1 - F.I.R., as rightly deposed by P.W.1, it is seen that only the driver of the Tempo Van is responsible for the accident. Though the revision petitioner / Insurance Company would claim that the driver of the Maxi Cab Van is solely responsible for the accident, however, as rightly, determined by the Tribunal, to sustain its case, it has not chosen to examine any person associated with the accident. As rightly determined by the Tribunal, the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident would be the competent witnesses to depose as regards the nature of the accident occurred. However, none of the drivers involved in the accident had been examined by either of the parties. Therefore, it could be seen that only from the evidence available on record, the liability has been fastened on the Tempo Van driver. As above noted, in the F.I.R., marked as Ex.P1, it has been clearly mentioned that it is only the driver of the Tempo Van, who is responsible for the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly swerving the vehicle to the right side and that the Maxi Cab Van was forced to hit the right rear side of the Tempo Van and resultantly, having lost the balance, further forced to dash against the neem tree and thereby, the accident had occurred. Though the revision petitioner would rely upon the M.V. Reports marked in the proceedings as Exs.P6 and P7, as rightly determined by the Tribunal, considering the M.V. Reports in the right perspective and the nature of the damage caused to the vehicles involved in the accident, noting that the Tempo Van had sustained damage in the right rear side and the Maxi Cab Van had sustained damage in the front right side and the same tallying with the averments contained in the F.I.R., in all, it is seen that the Tribunal had assessed the same correctly and in the right perspective and determined that the driver of the Tempo Van is responsible for the accident. Though it is also put-forth that the accident took place in the middle of the road, however, when with reference to the same, no material has been put-forth by the revision petitioner/Insurance Company and the materials placed on record clearly point out that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Van and the sudden swerving of the vehicle to the right side and thereby, the Maxi Cab Van was forced to hit the Tempo Van at its right rear portion, in all, it is seen that the Tribunal had rightly fixed and fastened the liability on the part of the driver of the Tempo Van and thereby, held that the owner and the revision petitioner being the insurer of the said vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the first respondent and the other claimants. 8. The argument has been put-forth that inasmuch as, according the first respondent, the accident had occurred on account of the hitting of the Maxi Cab Van against the neem tree, the driver of the Tempo Van could not be fastened with liability. 8. The argument has been put-forth that inasmuch as, according the first respondent, the accident had occurred on account of the hitting of the Maxi Cab Van against the neem tree, the driver of the Tempo Van could not be fastened with liability. However, when from the materials placed on record and on account of the sudden swerving of the Tempo Van by its driver to the right side, the Maxi Cab Van had hit the right rear portion of the Tempo Van and due to the said impact, the driver of the Maxi Cab Van had lost the control of the vehicle and thereby, forced to dash against the neem tree and furthermore, when the initial factor of the accident is found to be only on the part of the driver of the Tempo Van, it is noted that the Tribunal had also assessed the above said aspects correctly and determined that the driver of the Tempo Van is responsible for the accident. 9. Though the argument has been put-forth by the revision petitioner in the alternative that both the drivers should be held responsible for the accident, however, when with reference to the same, the revision petitioner has not placed any material pointing to the same and on the other hand, the materials placed on record would clearly show that the driver of the Tempo Van is solely responsible for the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving and the sudden turning of the vehicle to the right side, it is seen that the alternative contention put-forth by the revision petitioner that the responsibility for the accident should be fixed on both the drivers had been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 10. In the light of the above discussions, no interference is called for in the determination of the Tribunal fixing the Tempo Van's driver as responsible for the cause of the accident due to his rash and negligent driving and thereby, fixing the liability on the part of the owner of the Tempo Van and the insurer of the same, namely, the revision petitioner herein to pay the award amount in favour of the first respondent and the other claimants. 11. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal in favour of the first respondent, the same is not shown to be on the excessive and it is seen that the Tribunal has assessed the injuries caused to the first respondent and based on the materials placed on record, rightly determined the compensation to which the first respondent is entitled to receive the same. 12. Further, as regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, no argument has been put-forth in this civil revision petition and therefore, the above said factor determined by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 13. For the reasons afore-stated, the civil revision petition is found to be devoid of merits and it is, accordingly dismissed. No costs.