P.S. Gopinathan, J.

Oriental Insurance Company, the third respondent in O.P.(MV)Nos.303/02, 1107/02 and 1209/03, petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, is the appellant in all these three appeals. Original Petition was also filed by the very same company who was also the third respondent in O.P.(MV).1210/03. Hereinafter, the company is referred to as the appellant. By a common order dated 16/12/06 in O.P. (MV) Nos.303/02, 1107/02, 1209/03 and 1210/03, separate awards were passed by the Tribunal below against the appellant directing it to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the respective claimants. Assailing the above common order and respective awards, these appeals and the Original Petition were filed.

2. The brief facts leading to the appeals and the Original Petition are as follows:- At 8.30

a.m. on 26/08/01 at Mukka along Mangalore-Udippi NH-47, a motor accident occurred involving a bus owned by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and a mini bus. As a result, four passengers travelling in the KSRTC Bus sustained injuries, to which Viswanathan and Babu Mohan succumbed. The legal heirs of Viswanathan and Babu Mohan are the claimants in OP(MV)303/02 and OP (MV).1107/02. The other two injured are the claimants in the other two petitions. The 2nd respondent in all the petitions before the Tribunal was driving one Asha bus bearing Registration No.KA/20/B/7227, from North to South. The KSRTC bus was behind Asha bus. The claimants alleged that, while so, the 2nd respondent applied sudden brake. Consequently, the driver of the KSRTC Bus also applied brake. As an impact of the application of the brake, the rear side of the KSRTC Bus was tilted to the right. Thereupon, the mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA/19/C/5139 driven in the opposite direction hit on the rear side of the KSRTC bus and as a result, the passengers in the KSRTC bus sustained injuries. Attributing negligence against the second respondent, who was driving Asha bus, which was insured by the appellant, the claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal below.

3. The appellant filed written statements denying negligence on the part of the drivers of Asha bus and Mini bus and attributing negligence against the driver of the KSRTC Bus and contended that the claim made in all the petitions is exorbitant and that the appellant is not liable to compensate the claimants; and that the KSRTC and its driver are liable to compensate. Appellant admitted that it is the insurer of Asha bus and Mini bus.

4. KSRTC, in its separate written statements attributed negligence against the second respondent and contended that its driver was not negligent and hence it cannot be held

liable to compensate the claimants.

5. All the four petitions were tried jointly and the evidence was recorded in O.P.303/02. On the side of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined. Exts.A1 to A27, X1, X1(a) and X1(b) were marked on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined on the side of the appellant as RW1. The Tribunal below relying upon Ext.A1 First Information Report, Ext.A2 Scene Mahazar, Ext.A2(a) site plan and Ext.A5 Charge Sheet arrived at a finding that the second respondent who was driving Asha bus alone was negligent. In O.P.(MV).303/02 a sum of Rs.5,34,000/-was awarded as against the appellant. In other petitions, award for Rs.5,01,000/-, Rs.13,878/- and Rs.5,912/- respectively were passed. Since the award amount in O.P.(MV).1210/03 is less than Rs.10,000/-, in view of sub clause (2) of Section 173 of the M.V. Act, no appeal was preferred. But, assailing the award, the Original Petition was preferred.

6. We heard Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla), the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Shaji P. Abraham appearing for KSRTC and Sri.C.Rajendran appearing for the claimants; and perused the common order impugned as well as the documents.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant