Limit for liability to pay compensation.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. These appeals, at the instance of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., have been preferred against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Erode, in M.C.O.P. Nos. 120 and 114 of 1983 and 121 and 106 of 1982. On 25.2.1982, the bus bearing registration No. TNV 9698 belonging to K.O. Chinnasami (the second respondent in C.M.A. Nos. 479 and 482 of 1984, third respondent in C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984 and fourth respondent in C.M.A. No. 481 of 1984) driven by one Pongiannan, the husband of the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984 and father of the second respondent therein, met with an accident at Seemankuzhi, while it was proceeding from Coimbatore to Bannari and in that accident, the driver of the bus and some passengers died and other passengers received injuries. One Duraiswami, who was a passenger in the bus, died and his mother Angammal, the first respondent in C.M.A No. 479 of 1984, filed M.C.O.P. No. 120 of 1983 praying for the award of compensation in a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in respect of the death of her son Duraiswami. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in C.M.A No. 480 of 1984, who are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased driver of the bus, claimed in M.C.O.P. No. 114 of 1983 a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation in respect of the death of the driver Pongiannan in the accident; likewise, with reference to the death of another passenger of the name of Chellappan in that accident, his wife and minor daughter and son, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.M.A. No. 481 of 1984, claimed in M.C.O.P. No. 121 of 1982 compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The first respondent in C.M.A. No. 482 of 1984, who sustained injuries in that accident, in M.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1982, prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- should be awarded to her for the injuries. These claim petitions were resisted by the owner of the bus and the appellant insurance company on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that in spite of the best efforts of the driver to avert the accident, it could not be so done and that the compensation prayed for was excessive and on the high side. An additional defence that was raised by the appellant was to the effect that the vehicle was registered to carry only 54 passengers, but in fact it carried more, resulting in the violation of one of the conditions of the policy, rendering the insurance company not liable to pay the compensation as claimed and that in respect of the passengers, who had either lost their lives or sustained injuries, the maximum amount of compensation payable would only be Rs. 5,000/- per head, subject to an overall statutory limit of Rs. 50,000/- and no liability in excess of Rs. 50,000/- could be fastened on the appellant in respect of all the claims arising out of the accident.

2. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the respondents in these appeals as well as other claimants Exhs. A-1 to A-40 were filed and PWs 1 to 19 were examined, while on behalf of the appellant as well as the owner of the bus, Exhs. B-1 to B-5 were marked and RWs 1 to 3 gave evidence. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence so let in the Tribunal found that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, that the appellant insurance company had not established that there was a breach of one of the policy conditions by carrying more passengers than the registered capacity, that the claim put forward by the appellant for the limitation of its liability to Rs. 5,000/- per passenger, dead or injured, subject to an overall liability of Rs. 50,000/- could not be accepted and that the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 479 of 1984, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.M.A. No. 481 of 1984 and the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 482 of 1984 were entitled to compensation in sums of Rs. 31,500/-,