1. M/s Chandra and Shekar has filed power for R4 in MFA No. 4310/2007 and the same is taken on record.

2. Though these matters are posted for admission by consent of parties, the appeals are heard finally.

3. The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed MFA No. 4310/2007, Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in MFA No. 2624/2007. Both the Insurance Companies are challenging the liability saddled on them on the ground that the accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles insured respectively by each of the appellants. In MFA No.2624/2007 the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is also challenged.

4. The facts leading to these cases are as here under:

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the claimants before the MACT. One late John Ivon Fernandis died in a road traffic accident occurred on 01.03.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. On that day, deceased John Ivon Fernandis was riding his Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-15/E-2347 from Jog to Sagar. When he was near L.B. College in front of house of one Sreenivasa Rao, a tempo trax bearing No. CAB 4664-which was coming from Sagar side in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Motor Cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased as well as the pillion rider one G.M.Parameshwar fell on the road. Behid the motor cycle Bus bearing NO. KA-14/7821 was also proceeding in the same direction. On account of the sudden fall of the deceased on the road the bus driver could not control its speed immediately and the bus ran over the body of the deceased and he succumbed injuries on the spot. Therefore the claim petition was lodged.

5. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by each of the companies that the accident was occurred due to the rash driving of both the insured vehicles. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 13,69,000/-as compensation. However, the liability was fixed equally on both the insurance companies. Therefore, these two appeals are preferred by both the companies to set aside the liability fastened on them.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Sri. A Ravishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which had covered the risk of bus in question contends that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He further contends that having regard to the findings of the tribunal on the question of negligence; in the claim petition lodged by the pillion rider G.M. Parameshwar, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, he contends that the liability fastened equally on both the Insurance companies in the present case has to be set aside. According to him the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo trax which dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, due to the said impact, the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle fell on the road and the bus which was following the motor cycle ran over the deceased. According to him, if the tempo trax driver had driven the vehicle properly and if he had not caused the accident, there was no occasion for the bus running over the deceased. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company contends that even though the liability is saddled in entirety in respect of the claim of the pillion rider as the bus in question had not touched the pillion rider, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has satisfied the award. According to him the same cannot be a ground to hold that the driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus. In the circumstance, he requests to allow this appeal and dismiss the appeal of the United Insurance Company Limited. He further contends that charge sheet is also filed against the drive