As these three matters arise out of three claims in respect of the same motor accident, they have to be dealt with together.

On August 21, 1964, at about 10-30 p.m. one Chinnathambi Udayar along with Rajakannu Udayar and Lakhsmana Udayar were returning in these three bullock carts driven by them from Pudukottai to Kandarvakottai. While they were returning, the lorry M.D.O. 2914 proceeding towards Pudukottai dashed against the said three bullock carts coming in the opposite direction. As a result of the accident Chinnathambi Udayar and Rajakannu Udayar died and Lakhsmana Udayar and three other bulls also died, and all the three carts got claim damaged. The accident is alleged to have taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, M.D.O. 2914, ballooning to the second respondent in all these appeals and insured with the appellant herein.

The widow of Chinnathambi Udayar filed a claim M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1 of 1967 before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, claiming a sum of Rs. 15, 000 for his death and Rs. 1, 600 towards the value of the bulls and the cart. She claimed that Chinnathambi Udayar was aged only 30 years and he was earning an annual income of Rs. 3, 000 per year and that by the death of her husband she has suffered a damage at the rate of Rs. 3, 000 per year. calculating for a period of 30 years she worked out the total damages sustained by her at Rs. 90, 000 but, however, she restricted her claim to Rs. 15, 000.

The father of the deceased, Rajakannu Udayar, filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 2 of 1967 claiming a competition of Rs. 15, 000 in addition to sum of Rs. 950 being the value of the cart and one bull which died. His case was that he is the father of the deceased, of who was aged 21 at the time of his death, that the deceased was supporting the family by getting an income of Rs. 3, 000 per year and that taking this his normal exception of life at 60 years, he would have earned a sum of Rs. 1, 20, 000. But he has restricted his claim to Rs. 15, 000 only.Lakhsmana Udayar who got injured in the accident claimed sum of Rs. 7, 200; Rs. 500 being the medical expenses, Rs. 1, 800 being the loss of income for 9 months when he was treated for the injuries, Rs. 4, 000 being the compensation for the injury and mental pain, and Rs. 900 being the cost of the bulls and the cart.

These claims were resisted by the second respondent herein, alleged to be the owner of the lorry, and the appellant-insurance company. Another insurance company, who is the third respondent herein, was also cited as a respondents before the lowers court in the some of the petitions but as it was established that it has not insured the lorry in question at the relevant time, the claim as against it has been dismissed by the lower court and we are concerned with the third respondent any more. The case of the second respondent herein in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1 of 1967 was that his driver was driving the lorry with great care and caution, that the accident was not caused due to his rashness or negligence, that the accident could have happened due to the breakdown of the vital part of the machinery in the lorry, that the accident had happened owing to reasons beyond the control of the driver and that in any event he deceased and the injured were also guilty of contributory negligence. He also stated that the amounts claimed were excessive and imaginary. However, he put forward a different case in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1967. Therein he stated that he was not liable for damages since on the date of the accident he has parted with his interest in the lorry to a third party, in addition to his plea that the claim in that case was excessive and exaggerated.

The appellant herein originally contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver and that the damages claimed in each of the petitions are excessive. The appellant, after seeing the written statement filed by the second respondent that the l