The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the consideration of claimants' urgent need for compensation due to prolonged delays.

1. C.M.A.No.540 of 2010 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation challenging the common award dated 31.7.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Sub Court), Madurai.

2. All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common award. The facts of all the cases are one and the same as they arise out of the same accident. Hence, all the 40 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and 20 Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and disposed off by this common judgement by consent as the most claimants have filed for withdrawal of award amount stating that they are in dire need of money.

3. The facts of all the cases in brief is as follows:- The unfortunate accident in all the cases happened on 28.2.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. on the Madurai-Theni Main Road. The accident happened between two buses. The first bus bearing Registration No.TCS 423 belongs to the Theni Melapettai Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Matriculation Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as “the school bus”) and the second bus bearing Registration No.TCB 4250 belongs to Pandian Roadways Corporation, now called as Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “PRC bus”). In the school bus large number of child students, teachers and staff approximately 68 in all, travelled. It is pertinent to point out that all the children were studying in the Second Standard at the time of accident and therefore, all the 68 passengers are not adults. The PRC bus was proceeding from Cholavandan to Usilampatti and started at 7.00 a.m. and reached the spot of accident at 8.00 a.m. The school bus started from Theni to Alagarkoil on an education tour and reached the spot of accident at about 8.00 a.m. Due to the accident both the vehicles suffered serious damages. Most of the passengers in both the vehicles suffered grievous injuries and some of them died. The version of the most of the claimants as per the claim petitions is almost the same wherein they have stated that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. The passengers, who travelled in the PRC Bus, to name a few, Mr.Pappu (petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.454 of 1998) examined as P.W.32; Mr.Pichaimani (petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.455 of 1998) examined as P.W.36 and Mr.Palani (petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.480 of 1998) examined as P.W.70; have stated in their claim petitions that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. In the same manner, the passengers, who travelled in the school bus, have also stated that both the drivers were rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. The injured and the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed claims for compensation before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal tried all the claims together and disposed off the claims by a common award as above. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 81 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-447 were marked. On behalf of the PRC, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of the Insurance company, an official was examined as R.W.2. Ex.R-1 claim form furnished by the school authorities and Ex.R-2 copy of order passed under Workmens Compensation Act in the claim petition filed by the driver of the school bus were marked.

5. The stand of the PRC Bus is that the right front tyre of the school bus burst and the driver lost control and the said vehicle came and hit against the PRC bus resulting in the accident. According to the PRC, the negligence was on the part of the driver of the school bus that is the sole reason for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunals finding of negligence on both the drivers is inappropriate and contrary to facts.

6. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal relied upon the following evidence. The evidence of the conductor of the PRC bus, R.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.73, a passenger in the s