Per S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Aggrieved by the award, fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the victim, who is said to be the tort-feasor and caused the accident, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 211. 1998, at 5.45 a.m., when he was driving a Jeep bearing Registration No. TN 09 C 6773 from Rameswaram to Chennai i.e., from South to North at GST Road, along with his friends, near Ayyankoil Pattu, Villupuram, suddenly two buffalos crossed the road and in order to avoid the collusion, he came to the right side of the road and in that process, though he had exercised caution, lost control and dashed against a bridge, due to which, he sustained injuries all over his body and admitted to Villupuram Government Hospital. It is the further case of the respondent/claimant that the accident was not due to his negligence and therefore, prayed for appropriate compensation under various heads.

3. Theappellant/Insurance Company, with the leave of the Court, disputed the manner of the accident. They further submitted that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the respondent/claimant. They also submitted that the claimant was not an employee under the owner of the vehicle and therefore, he cannot himself to be a driver and in the abovesaid circumstances, not entitled to maintain a claim petition. Without prejudice to the above, the nature of injuries sustained by him and the compensation claimed under various heads, were also disputed.

4. In the additional counter affidavit, the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that in the said accident, three other persons were also injured and one died. Legal representatives of the deceased and the injured persons filed separate claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos. 5637, 5603, 5638 and 5639 of 1999, respectively and the learned VIth Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, by a common judgment, dated 28. 2006 has categorically held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the respondent/claimant. They further contended that the respondent, being responsible for the accident, cannot maintain a claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and P.w.2 is said to be an eye-witness to the accident. PWs.3 and 4 are the Doctors, who examined the respondent/claimant with reference to the medical records. Exhibit P-1 – Discharge Summary, Exhibit P-2-Medical bills, Exhibit P-3 – Income Certificate, Exhibit P-4 – FIR, Exhibit P-5 – Disability Certificate, Exhibit P-6 – X-Ray, Exhibit P-7 – Disability Certificate and Exhibit P-8 – Driving Licence of the respondent/claimant were marked. The Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibit R-1-Authorisation Letter and Exhibit R-2-Judgment Copy in the above referred claim petitions were marked on the side of the appellant-Insurance Company.

6. TheTribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,27,062/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering, i.e., 110. 2000, till the date of realization.

7. Assailing the correctness of the award, Ms. V. Sowmya, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the Jeep bearing Registration No. TN 09 C 6773, is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, despite the fact the he was responsible for the same. She further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of R.W.1, Assistant Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company, who had investigated into the occurrence and placed Exhibit R-2, copy of the judgment rendered in other claim petitions, where it has been categorically held that the claimant was negligent in causing the accident.

8. Learned coun