Swamikkannu, J.

1. A.A.O. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1982 arise out of the award in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 2 and 47 of 1980 respectively. M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 2 and 47 of 1980 were disposed of together by a common award dated 13th July, 1981 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (District Judge) of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, Both these petitions were filed Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation 3. They have been tried together since they related to the same accident. Evidence has been recorded in MACTOP No. 2 of 1980. The third respondent M/s. New India Assurance Company is the appellant in A.A.O. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1982.

2. It is common ground that the accident took place at about 3-00 a.m. on 3-7-1979 near Katnampatti about 3 K.M. from Krishnagiri in Krishnagiri-Madras Trunk Road and that the lorry bearing registration number MSM 6072 driven by the 1st respondent in the petitions hit against a stationary Lorry as a result of which Velmurugan and Nagendran who traveled in the Lorry along with their goods died. The widow and mother of the deceased Velmurugan have filed M.A.C.T O.P. No. 2 of 1980. Similarly mother and father of the deceased Nagendran have filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 47 of 1980. Alleging that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent Mohamed Moosa, the driver of the lorry, both the petitions have been filed claiming compensation.

3. The first respondent Mohamed Moosa, the driver of the lorry has filed a counter in M.A.C.T.O.P. No, 2 of 1980 which is adopted by the 2nd respondent, the owner of the lorry. The 3rd respondent insurance company has filed a separate counter. In M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 47 of 1980, the 1st respondent, the driver and 2nd respondent, the owner of the lorry remained exparte and the 3rd respondent, Insurance company contended that the accident was not due to any rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent and so, none of the respondents is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the death of Velmurugan and Nagendran and in any event, the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

On the above pleadings, the following points were framed by the Tribunal for consideration:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry MSM 6072?

(2) What is the quantum of compensation?

4. PW 1 Santha the petitioner in M.A.C.A. No. 2/80, PW 2 M.V. Ramanujam, 2nd petitioner in M.A.C.A. No. 47/80 and PW 3 Krishnan were examined on the side of the petitioners. Ex. A-1 and A-2 cash bills for Beedi, Ex. A-3 and A-4 house rent receipts for Rs. 25/- and Rs. 16/- respectively, Ex. A-5 Excise duty G.P.I, receipt Ex. A-6 Notice issued by Advocate to the respondent, Ex. A-7 reply notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent, Ex. A-8 post mortem certificate regarding the body of M.R. Nagendran, Ex. A-9 certified copy of judgment in C.C No. 32/80 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, and Ex. A-10 certified copy of post mortem certificate regarding the body of Velmurugan were filed on behalf of the petitioners. No witness was examined on the side of the respondents Ex, B-1 true copy of Insurance policy No. 678930 for MSM 6072 issued by the New India Assurance Co., Ltd., was filed on the side of the respondent.

5. Under point No. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent. Under point No. 2, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company, the appellant herein is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation if the amount does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. In the result, both the petitions were allowed! The petitioners in M.AC.T.O.P. No. 2 of 1980 are entitled to receive Rs. 37,100/- as compensation and they are entitled to equal shares. The petitioners in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 47 of 1980 are entitled to receive Rs. 24,500/- as compensation. Respondents