No scope for application of the principle of contributory negligence.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. :- The proceedings which have come up to this Court arise out of an accident, which took place on 6-5-1978 at about 11.20 a.m. or 11.40 a. m. and which involved the bus belonging to the Kattabom man Transport Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Transport Corporation, and the van belonging to Andhra Marine Exports Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Van owners. The van was insured with the United India Fire and General Insurance Co., hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company. One A Pathrose was the driver of the van. One Natarajan was the driver of the bus. P. Radhakrishnan was a passenger in the bus. We will presently came to the question as to the nature of and the manner in which the accident took place and as to who is to be held culpable for the accident. In the accident Natarajan, the diver of the bus, and another passenger in the bus died at the spot. P. Radhakrishnan sustained injuries, the details of which we will have occasion to refer to in the course of this judgment. P. Radhakrishnan laid M. A. C. P. No. 14 of 1977 before the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, claiming compensation Rs. 15000 for the injuries sustained by him, and under other heads. In that petition,. the Transport Corporation was first respondent the Van operator, the second respondent the driver of the van, third respondent and the Insurance company the fourth respondent. The Transport Corporation laid O. S. 90 of 1977 on the file of the the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapurarn, claiming a sum of Rs. 31,439-18, for darnages sustained by the bus in the accident. In that suit, the diver of the van was the first defendant: the Van owners, the second defendant and Insurance Company, the third defendant. The Subordinate Judge Nagaroil, considered the claim for compensation by P. Radhakrishnan in M. A. C. P. 14 of 1977 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,250, against the van owners, the driver of the van and the Insurance Company and the Transport Corporation was exonerated from the rim, C. M. A. 106 of 1979 has been referred by the Van owners and the diver of the van, and the respondents therein are P. Radhakrishnan and the Insurance Company. C. M. A. 258 of 1979 has been preferred by the Van owners along with the Insurance Company and the respondents therein are P. Radhakrishnan the Transport Corporation. O. S. 90 of 1977, after trial by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, culminated van a decree in favour of the Transport Corporation as prayed for with costs. Against the, judgment and decree in S.90 of 1977. A. S. 77 of 1980 has been referred by the driver of the van and the in owners. and the respondents therein or the Transport Corporation and the Insurance Company; and A. S. 98 of 1980 has been preferred by the Van Owners and the Insurance Company and the respondents therein are the Transport Corporation and the driver of the van.

2. The parties being same and the main question involved being common to all the parties, submissions were made by the respective counsel in common and we are obliged to deal with the matter by it common judgement. Both in M. A. C. P. 14 of 1977 and in O. S. 90 of 1977 the courts below have held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the van.

3. The primary question that comes up for consideration before us is as to who was responsible for the accident. Mr. T. S. Rant, and Mr. P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellants did make an attempt to dislodge the findings rendered by the Courts below on this question. But, we must point out that these attempts proved a futile process. In M. A. C. P. 14 of 1977 alone we find that a contention seemed to have been raised that it could be a case of contributory negligence. The contention regarding contributory negligence is an obvious misconception. The claimant, the injured P. Radhakrishnan was a passenger in the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. When