Insurance Company held liable to pay compensation.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- The insurer of the vehicle MDS 8287, which was involved in a fatal accident and against whom an award was passed for a sum of Rupees 25000/- by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T. O.P. 42 of 1977, is the appellant herein.

2. On 15-2-1977, at about 9.30 a.m. one Kunjithapatham was checking in the said bus as he was the checking inspector employed by the transport company which owns the bus. While he was so checking the tickets, the vehicle got off the road and dashed against a palmyra tree and capsized. As a result of the sudden jerk and unexpected dashing and capsizing of the bus the said Kunjithapatham was crushed to death. On the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the said' bus by its driver, the dependants of the deceased

Kunjithapatham flied a claim Petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.42 of 1977 claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for his death.

3. The said claim petition was opposed by the owner of the vehicle and the insurer with which the vehicle had been insured. The owner's case was that the accident was not due to the rash and, negligent driving of the bus by its diver, that the road was too narrow at that place and on seeing a lorry coming on the opposite direction, the driver of the bus, in order to give way to the lorry, went to the left side of the road and the wheels got stuck in the sandy portion and that it ultimately dashed against the palmyra tree and capsized. Accordin g to him, the accident was an inevitable one. They also contended that in any event the compensation claimed was excessive. The insurer filed a counter-statement contending that the accident took place as a result of a mechanical defect and the deceased, who was standing at the footboard in a careless manner, fell on the road and sustained injury on his head and died.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident was clearly due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. In that view, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 25000/to the claimants payable by the insurer. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the insurer had come in appeal.

5. Though the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver is sought to be challenged, the circumstances under which the accident took place will clearly attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The fact that the vehicle had gone off the road and hit against the palmyra tree and rolled down would indicate the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. We cannot, therefore, interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver.

6. Coming to the quantum of compensation the appellant's contention is that the deceased, being a checker, his risk need not be covered as per the provisions of Section 95 (2) and therefore the insurer cannot be held liable at all for his death. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that even if the Insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner as regards the risk to a checker, the extent up to which the insurer has to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is limited under the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such it will not extend to the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal, Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the provisions of Section 95 (2) to disclaim the insurer's liability to cover a risk to a checker travelling in a bus, we find that the insurer has, in fact, covered the risk of all employees travelling in the bus under the contract of Insurance. Section II of the Policy deals with the Insurer's liability to third parties. Clause (i) of Section II says -

"Subject to the limits of liability the Company will indemnify the Insured against all sums including claimant's costs and expenses which the Insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect o