JUDGMENT : The civil revision petition is directed against the award, dated 06.03.2008, passed in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 1995, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni. 2. The first respondent herein had laid a claim petition against the revision petitioner at the first instance seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. According to the first respondent, while she was travelling in a Van bearing registration TDW 2201, on 25.09.1994, and the van driver was driving the vehicle at a normal speed, while so, the bus bearing registration No.TN57 0154, belonging to the revision petitioner, came at a high speed, driven by its driver recklessly, without sounding horn and thereby, dashed against the van near Muneeswaran Kovil, Uthamapalayam, at about 12.30 p.m., and the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and consequently, the petitioner had sustained injuries as detailed in the claim petition and accordingly, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the revision petitioner, the claim petition has been preferred by the first respondent. Thereafter, it is seen that the owner and the insurer of the van in which, the first respondent was travelling had also been impleaded as the respondents 2 and 3 in the claim petition, who are the respondents 2 and 3 in this civil revision petition. 3. Thereafter, it is seen that the owner and the insurer of the van in which, the first respondent was travelling had also been impleaded as the respondents 2 and 3 in the claim petition, who are the respondents 2 and 3 in this civil revision petition. 3. The revision petitioner has resisted the claim petition denied the first respondent's case that it is the bus driver who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as alleged in the claim petition and also denied the fact that the bus driver, without sounding horn, had dashed against the van, in which the first respondent was travelling, on the other hand, contended that the bus driver was driving the vehicle in a normal speed and the place of occurrence is a narrow bridge, hence, the bus driver before crossing the bridge became alert and drove the bus carefully and noticing the van, the bus driver gave proper signal and despite the same, the van driver suddenly entered into the bridge and due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver, he could not control the vehicle and knocked off the culvert on the western side of the bridge and thereby, the rear side of the van turned towards the bus and dashed against the front right side and caused damage to the bus and therefore, contended that it is only the van driver, who is solely responsible for the accident and not the bus driver as putforth in the claim petition and accordingly, sought for the impleadment of the owner and the insurer of the van and also contended that the compensation amount claimed by the first respondent in the claim petition under various heads is excessive and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. It is the specific case of the first respondent that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner's bus driver and accordingly, it is only the revision petitioner, who is liable to pay the compensation, to which she is entitled to. 5. 4. It is the specific case of the first respondent that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner's bus driver and accordingly, it is only the revision petitioner, who is liable to pay the compensation, to which she is entitled to. 5. Per contra, according to the revision petitioner's contentions, the bus driver was driving the vehicle carefully by giving due signal etc., and on the other hand, only the van driver, without noticing the same, suddenly entered into the bridge and due to his rash and negligent driving, unable to control the vehicle, dashed against the culvert of the bridge and thereby, dashed against the bus and caused damage to the bus and therefore, it is stated that only the van driver is responsible for the accident. 6. With reference to the nature of the accident, the first respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and also marked the copy of F.I.R. as Ex.P1 and the wound certificate as Ex.P2. 7. On a perusal of Ex.P1, a copy of the F.I.R., as rightly determined by the Tribunal, it is seen that the case had been registered only against the revision petitioner's bus driver as being responsible for the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving and inasmuch as no contra evidence has been adduced by the revision petitioner to hold that the van driver is solely responsible for the accident and not the bus driver, accordingly, based on the evidence of the first respondent and the F.I.R., marked as Ex.P1, the Tribunal had proceeded to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Accordingly, it is seen that the bus being owned by the revision petitioner and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, being vicariously liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal, after fixing the compensation amount at Rs.5,000/- to which the first respondent is entitled to, accordingly, awarded the compensation in favour of the first respondent holding that the compensation amount is liable to be paid by the revision petitioner. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 8. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 8. The only contention putforth by the revision petitioner's counsel is that there is no material to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. On the other hand, as determined by the Tribunal, considering the F.I.R., projected in the matter and when from the same it could be gathered that the case had been registered only against the revision petitioner's bus driver as being responsible for the accident and when there is no contra evidence adduced by the revision petitioner to hold otherwise, as putforth by it in the counter, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner's bus driver is responsible for the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving. Resultantly, the revision petitioner being the owner of the bus and being vicariously liable, it is seen that the Tribunal has determined that the revision petitioner is liable to pay the compensation to which, the first respondent is entitled to. In such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, no interference is called for in the Award passed by the Tribunal, accordingly, the civil revision petition is found to be devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.