Compensation awarded must be fair, just and reasonable.

1. CMA.No:1151 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP.No.3939 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO.8 of 2002 for enhanced of compensation.

2. CMA.No:1152 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP.No.3940 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO.9 of 2002 for enhanced of compensation.

3. CMA.No:1153 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP.No.3941 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO.10 of 2002 for enhanced compensation.

4. CMA.No:1154 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP.No. 4031 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO. 11 of 2002 for enhanced compensation.

5. CMA.No:1155 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP.No.4049 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO.12 of 2002 for enhanced compensation.

6. For convenience, the parties will be referred as claimants, owner of the vehicle(Respondent No.1) and insurer of the vehicle (Respondent No.2) as arrayed before the Tribunal below.

7. The claimant in the respective Claim Petition being close relatives or family members or relatives claimed that they travelled by a Taxi bearing Registration No.TN-07-C-3280 from Madras to Thirunallar on 14.6.1997. According to the claimants the said vehicle near Kothadai Bus stop off Pudhuchattiram, in Chidambaram Taluk around 5.30 a.m., driven rashly and negligently by the Driver of the Taxi and at a high speed, dashed against a culvert and fell into the river upside down as a result of which the claimants who are the occupants of the Car sustained injuries. It is alleged that the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned by the first respondent, which vehicle has been insured with the second respondent-insurer. The claimant in the respective claim petitions examined himself/herself as witness besides Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan and Dr.Rajappa. The claimants also marked Exs.P.1 to P.39 to prove the injuries/fractures sustained by each one of them. The owner of the vehicle remained absent. The insurer of the vehicle moved the Tribunal below under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to raise and defend the claim, which leave was granted by the tribunal below on 4.12.2000 by orders passed in separate miscellaneous applications. It has to be pointed out that the insurer has not let in any evidence to the contra, nor, produced any documents to demonstrate that no such accident has occurred as claimed by the claimants. In fact there is no cross examination of the witnesses examined by the claimants with respect to the accident in which the respective claimants sustained injuries/fractures as the case may be. There was no cross examination with respect to the manner of accident as has been deposed by the claimants. However, at the time of argument, it was contended that no such accident had occurred, besides pointing out certain improbabilities according to the insurer with respect to the alleged accident.

8. The Tribunal below framed the following three points for consideration in all the Claim Petitions:-

(i) Whether the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belong to the first respondent driven by the driver