These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the award and decree dated 16. 2003 made in MCOP No.37 of 1999, against the award and decree dated 28. 2003 made in MCOP No.534 of 2003, against the common award and decree dated 28. 2003 made in MCOP Nos.536 and 539 of 2003, against the common award and decree dated 16. 2003 made in MCOP Nos.368 and 369 of 1997, against the award and decree dated 16. 2003 made in MCOP No.85 of 1998, against the common award and decree dated 16. 2003 made in MCOP Nos.197 of 1998, 215 of 1998 and 227 of 1998, against the award and decree dated 16. 2003 made in MCOP No.228 of 1998 and against the award and decree dated 28. 2003 made in MCOP No.540 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge), Pondicherry.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

These appeals are arising out of a common accident. There were 81 passengers travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TAU 9515 belonging to one Prabhu, who is one of the respondents in all these appeals, from Kodaikanal Hill to Palani on 02.05.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. When the bus was going between B.L. Shed and North Kavounchi, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, a vehicle came from the opposite direction towards Kodaikanal and in order to give way for that vehicle, the driver moved the bus towards left side and the earth near the front wheel caved in, resulting in the bus getting tilted and falling into a deep trench. Due to the accident, some of the passengers were killed and some of them sustained grievous injuries. The claimants in the respective claim petitions claimed compensation. The said bus was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company, who resisted the claims. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in all the cases:-

a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to one Prabhu, driven by its driver?

b) Whether the driver of the offending bus was having proper driving licence to drive the same and whether the said bus was covered by proper documents as contemplated under the M.V. Act?

c) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom?

After considering the materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to one Prabhu and awarded compensation. Aggrieved by the award amounts, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that there is no proof that all the passengers have travelled in the bus belonging to one Prabhu. There were 81 passengers in the bus. It was overloaded. The seating capacity of the bus is only 57 + 2. Under such circumstances, there has been a gross violation of policy as well as violation of the Registration Certificate and permit conditions. Therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only for the permissible limit of 57+2 passengers and since the bus was overloaded, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Counsel for the appellant alternatively submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification and that therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal are not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside.

4. Heard the counsel. The main argument of the counsel for the appellant is that there is no proof to show that 81 passengers had travelled in the bus. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that these persons had travelled in the bus which is based on the Investigation Report, which is an exhibit in all the cases. As per the said Investigation Report, 81 persons had travelled, out of which 32 persons died and 4