JUDGMENT (Common Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2000 made in MCOP Nos.786, 787 and 788 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Villupuram.) Common Judgment 1. All these appeals arise out of a common Judgment dated 28.04.2000 made in MCOP Nos.786, 787 and 788 of 1995 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. 2. Since all the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The parties to these appeals are referred to as per their ranks in the claim petitions for the sake of convenience. 4. Before the Tribunal, three Claim Petitions were filed in MCOP Nos.786, 787 and 788 of 1995. MCOP No. 786 of 1995 was filed by the wife, minor daughter, minor son and mother of the deceased – L.S.Ravi; MCOP No. 787 of 1995 was filed by the injured claimant – Jaya Prakash and MCOP No. 788 of 1995 was filed by another injured claimant – Mohanram. 5. On 23.08.1994, the deceased – L.S.Ravi and his friends R.G.Mohanram and K.Jaya Prakash (injured claimants) proceeded towards Chennai from Madurai to receive Mr.A.Chellakumar, M.B.B.S, State President, Tamil Nadu Youth Congress. After receiving the guest, the deceased – L.S.Ravi and the injured claimants started from Chennai on 24.08.1994 at 8.00 pm., by PRC Bus. When the said PRC Bus bearing Registration No.TN 59 No.0050 was nearing Perangiyur, Padagam, after Villupuram, a Trailor bearing Registration No.TDM 9795, which came from south direction, dashed against the PRC Bus and caused the accident at 3.00 a.m., on 25.08.1994. Because of the gruesome accident, the PRC Bus Drivers – Natarajan and Mohan died on the way to hospital. The deceased – L.S.Ravi sustained grievous injuries and both of his legs were crushed and both of his leg bones were broken. Immediately, the claimant in MCOP No.787 of 1995 – Jaya Prakash, who was conscious made arrangements in taking the injured persons, i.e., L.S.Ravi and R.G.Mohanram to the Government Hospital, Villupuram by requesting the Drivers of another PRC Bus, which came from Chennai, one hour after the accident. Immediately, the claimant in MCOP No.787 of 1995 – Jaya Prakash, who was conscious made arrangements in taking the injured persons, i.e., L.S.Ravi and R.G.Mohanram to the Government Hospital, Villupuram by requesting the Drivers of another PRC Bus, which came from Chennai, one hour after the accident. After giving first aid, the Doctor, In-charge directed the said Jaya Prakash to take the injured persons to Madurai, since, the required medical facilities were not available in the said hospital. Immediately, after arranging one Van and one Ambassador Car, L.S.Ravi was taken in a Van and R.G.Mohanram was taken in a Car to Madurai. When the Van was nearing Trichy, there was over bleeding in the legs of L.S.Ravi. So, he was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Trichy and in the meantime, the Car carrying R.G.Mohanram reached Government Hospital, Madurai. In the meanwhile, since L.S.Ravi insisted that he should also taken to Madurai, after some treatment from Government Hospital, Trichy, he was taken to Senthil Nursing Home, K.K.Nagar, Madurai and admitted there. In Senthil Nursing Home, since, the kidneys of L.S.Ravi affected, he was advised to move to some other hospital. Thereafter, L.S.Ravi was taken to Sumathy Hospital, Madurai for dialysis. Unfortunately, he could not recover and died in Sumathy Hospital. Alleging that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Trailor, the deceased – L.S.Ravi succumbed to death, the claimants, viz., wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased – L.S.Ravi have filed the claim petition in MCOP.No.786 of 1995 for a sum of Rs.9 Lakhs as compensation. 6. The claimant in MCOP No.787 of 1995 who has also sustained injuries in the said accident has filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The said claimant is first respondent in C.M.A.No.1444 of 2003. 7. The claimant in MCOP No.788 of 1995 who has sustained grievous injuries and bone fracture in his left arm and also injuries in both the legs has filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said claimant is first respondent in C.M.A.No.1445 of 2003. 8. Resisting the Claim Petitions, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed separate but identical counter statements in all the claim petitions. The said claimant is first respondent in C.M.A.No.1445 of 2003. 8. Resisting the Claim Petitions, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed separate but identical counter statements in all the claim petitions. It was the common defence of the appellant/ Transport Corporation that the Driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation on seeing the on coming trailor, immediately applied brake and secured the Bus to the northern left side. However, the trailor came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant Bus. Thus, the driver of the trailor alone responsible for the accident. Further, it is mentioned that the Thiruvennainallur Police registered a criminal case in Cr.No.452 of 1994 as against the Driver of the trailor and not as against the driver of the appellant/Transport Corporation. The appellant has also questioned the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased/injured claimants and its liability to pay the compensation. 9. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the respective claim petitions, the first claimant in MCOP No. 786 of 1995 namely Vijaya was examined as PW1. The first claimant in MCOP No. 788 of 1995 namely Mohanram was examined as PW2 and similarly, the first claimant in MCOP No.787 of 1995, namely Jaya Prakash was examined as PW3. In all the claim petitions, one Dr.Jayaraman was examined as PW4 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to 24. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses, viz., Maasanam and M.S.Elango, Principal Judge, were examined and one document was marked. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Villupuram, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.4,72,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively as compensation to the claimants in all the Original Petitions and directed the respondents therein to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common award dated 28.04.2000, the appellant/Transport Corporation in the Original Petitions are before us with these appeals. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation would submit that the Tribunal has come to an erroneous conclusion, as if both the driver of the Bus as well as the driver of the trailor were responsible for the accident. In this regard, for arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the FIR – Ex.P.7 registered on the basis of the complaint given by the Conductor of the another bus. In this regard, for arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the FIR – Ex.P.7 registered on the basis of the complaint given by the Conductor of the another bus. Since all the three persons, viz., L.S.Ravi, Jaya Prakash and Mohanram were injured and immediately hospitalised, they could not prefer any complaint either against the driver of the Bus or against the driver of the trailor. Hence, the Conductor of another bus, which came later on that way, lodged a complaint before the Thiruvennainallur Police. After accident, on the way to hospital, the drivers of the PRC Bus, Natarajan and Mohan died. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that in the other claim petitions filed by other injured persons, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the trailor lorry alone drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, directed the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The claimants, who are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that the driver of the Bus also driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On that score alone, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the negligence on the appellant. The Tribunal failed to note that on the complaint made in Cr.No.452 of 1994 the police completed investigation and filed a criminal case only against the driver of the trailor and who in turn got punished by the II Additional District Judge, Madurai. The Tribunal did not give credence to this aspect of the matter and solely relied on the evidences of P.W.2 and 3. Moreover, the driver of the trailor has not been examined before the Tribunal, to depose about the manner of accident. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and to allow the appeals. 14. Opposing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the driver of the trailor drove the vehicle in a normal speed by adhering the traffic rules. However, the Driver of the PRC Bus which came in the opposite direction lost his control over the bus and dashed against the trailor. Due to the sudden hit, the drivers of the Bus were died when they were on the way to hospital. 15. However, the Driver of the PRC Bus which came in the opposite direction lost his control over the bus and dashed against the trailor. Due to the sudden hit, the drivers of the Bus were died when they were on the way to hospital. 15. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the claims made by the dependants of the deceased – L.S.Ravi and other injured-victims are concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has passed a reasonable award and it calls for no interference by this Court. It is stated that the Tribunal reimbursed the entire medical expenses incurred by the claimants. Further, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment, transportation and loss of income during the period of treatment are befitting to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased – L.S.Ravi and other injured-victims. 16. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the early morning 3.00 a.m.,. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of accident, the trailor bearing Registration No. TDM 9795 belonged to the one Gunasekaran and insured with the 3rd respondent. On a fateful day, the deceased – L.S.Ravi, injured claimants – Jaya Prakash and Mohanram came to Chennai to receive Mr.Chellakumar, M.B.B.S., State President Tamil Nadu Youth Congress (I) Committee, who was arriving from Delhi on 24.08.1994, in the morning flight. Upon receiving him, they left Chennai by PRC bus bearing Registration No.TN 59 No.0050. When the bus was nearing Perangiyur, a trailor bearing Registration No.TDM 9795, which was coming from south, dashed against the bus and caused the accident. Since there is no independent eye witness, P.W's.2 and 3, who are the injured claimants are treated as eye witness to the alleged accident and before the Tribunal, they deposed that the driver of the PRC bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the PRC bus, the deceased – L.S.Ravi and other injured claimants took the seat which is behind the seat of driver. They produced the tickets – Ex.P.19, to show that they had seated behind the driver's seat. P.W.2 has categorically stated that he seen the on coming trailor, at the time of accident. In the PRC bus, the deceased – L.S.Ravi and other injured claimants took the seat which is behind the seat of driver. They produced the tickets – Ex.P.19, to show that they had seated behind the driver's seat. P.W.2 has categorically stated that he seen the on coming trailor, at the time of accident. If the driver of the PRC bus is vigilant enough, on seeing the trailor, he could have reduced the speed and might have tried to park the bus in the left side of the road. The First Information Report – Ex.P.7 was registered only against the driver of the trailor. As per the evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3, it is clear that the driver of the PRC bus also contributed negligence for the accident. In a claim petition filed by another claimants in MCOP Nos.1483 and 2003 of 1995, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the driver of the trailor and fixed liability on the 2nd and 3rd respondents therein. The appellant/Transport Corporation also filed MCOP No.777 of 1996 for the damages caused by the driver of the trailor. However, it cannot be gainsaid that the entire negligence is attributable on the part of the driver of the trailor alone. Therefore, this Court is of the view that some negligence is attributable towards the driver of the PRC bus also. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the respondents therein and directed them to pay compensation as awarded in MCOP Nos.786, 787 and 788 of 1995 dated 28.04.2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. Further, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the Judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.No.1153 of 1994 dated 29.06.1999, held between, Thiruvallur Transport Corporation, Rep. By its Managing Director, Madras Vs. 1.D.Narayana, 2.Pallavan Transport Corporation, Rep. By its Managing Director, Madras. Therefore, this Court desist from interfering with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Further, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are fair and reasonable in all the above mentioned claim petitions. 17. In the result: (i) All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2000 made in MCOP Nos.786, 787 and 788 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. Further, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are fair and reasonable in all the above mentioned claim petitions. 17. In the result: (i) All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2000 made in MCOP Nos.786, 787 and 788 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. C.M.A.No.1443 of 2003: (ii)The appellant/Transport Corporation, 5th and 6th respondents are directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.4,72,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit is being made, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. In so far as, share of the minor children, by this time they may be attained majority. Hence, they can make necessary petitions before the Tribunal and withdraw their share as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. It is made clear, the claimants are not entitled for interest during the delay period. C.M.A.No.1444 of 2003: The appellant/Transport Corporation, 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit is being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. It is made clear, the claimant is not entitled for interest during the delay period, if any. C.M.A.No.1445 of 2003: The appellant/Transport Corporation, 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit is being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. It is made clear, the claimant is not entitled for interest during the delay period, if any. No costs.