The liability of an insurance company for injuries to passengers in a bus accident is limited to Rs. 2,000 per passenger, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act prior to the 1969 amendment.

N.S. RAMASWAMI, J. :- These four civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chingleput. The said Tribunal disposed of three claim petitions by a common judgement, the claims in all these three petitions arising out of one and the same accident. The accident in question occurred on 11-5-1967 at about 8.30 a.m. near Ambattur in Avadi-Madras road. The Vehicle involved in the accident is the bus bearing registration No. MDF 1376 owned by the 1st respondent in all the three petitions before the Claims Tribunal Minor Ravi (by his next friend) is the petitioner in M. O. P. No. 60 of 1967. Meyyappan is the petitioner in M. O. P. 61 of 1967 and Annamalai is the petitioner in M. O. P, No. 64 of 1967. Out of these three petitioners, the first two, viz., minor Ravi and Meyyappan, were passengers in the bus concerned. The 2nd respondent in all these petitions was the driver of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.

2. Admittedly the bus MDF 1376 which had been engaged by a group of persons, was returning from Tirupathi. When the bus was proceeding towards Madras on the morning of 11-5-1967, it capsized. Minor Ravi, aged 5 years, who was one of the passengers in the bus, got serious injuries on his right forearm and the evidence discloses that this limb has been permanently impaired. Meyyappan, the petitioner in M. O. P. No. 61 of 1967, also received some injuries, though they are not so serious.

3. Annamalai, the petitioner in M. O. P. 64 of 1967, was said to be passing on the road on a cycle and he claimed that the bus in question actually knocked him down before it capsized and thereby he sustained injuries. The compensation claimed by minor Ravi in M. O. P. No. 60 of 1967 is Rs. 27100, made up of Rs. 25000 towards general damages and Rs. 2100 towards special damages. Meyyapan, the petitioner in M. O. P. 61 of 1967, claimed a total sum of Rs. 5900 - Rs. 5000 towards damages and Rs. 900 towards special damages. Annamalai, the petitioner in MOP 64 of 1967, claimed a total compensation of Rs. 15000. The case of the petitioners is that the accident was brought about due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. The owner of the bus and the insurer thereof, viz, respondents 1 and 3 respectively in the three petitions, contested the petitions. Their main contention has been that there was neither negligence nor rashness on the part of the driver of the bus and therefore the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal below held that Annamalai, the petitioner in M. O. P. 64 of 1967, had not been knocked down by the bus in question, that he should have been knocked down by a lorry which was going ahead of the bus and that therefore he was not entitled to claim any compensation against the respondents. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal and there is no appeal by Annamalai, the petitioner therein, against that decision. So in these appeals we are concerned only with the two petitioners, viz. the petitioners in M. O. P. 60 of 1967. The Tribunal below awarded the entire sum of Rs. 27100 claimed by the petitioner in M. O. P. 60 of 1967. In MOP 61 of 1967, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2950 (though the claim was for a total sum of Rs. 5900). The Tribunal was of the view that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited to a sum of Rupees 2,000/- for an injured passenger of the bus and, in the words of the Tribunal ".........

the liability of the 3rd respondent is fixed in proportion which Rs. 20,000/- would bear to the compensation awarded to both the petitioners, and the remaining amount petitioners will be entitled from the 1st respondent. My findings on point 2 in M. O. P. 60 and 61 of 1967 are accordingly."

4. C. M. A. No. 158 of 1968 is filed by the owner of the bus (1st respondent) challenging the decision of the Tribunal below in M. O. P. 60 of 1967. C. M. A. No. 330 of 1970 is also again