In a motor vehicle accident case, if the negligence of both drivers contributes to the accident, both transport corporations are jointly liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. As against the Award dated 30.8.1989 made in M.C.O.P. No. 517 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Sub Judge), Madurai directing the appellants to pay the compensation to the claimant, the first respondent herein, has filed this appeal. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal could be summarised as follows:—

(a) While the claimant Veerammal was travelling in a bus belonged to the Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation on 9.4.1988, the said bus as well as the other bus belonged to Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation came with a great speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided against each other. In the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injury on the hand and 2 or 3 fingers got completely cut.

(b) With reference to the incident, F.I.R. Ex. P.2 has been registered by the Police. The sketch is Ex. P3. The motor Vehicle Inspectors report is Ex. P5.

(c) The claimant filed a petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- against both the Transport Corporation buses. In order to establish her case, the claimant examined herself as P.W.I and the Doctor, who gave treatment, as P.W.2. Exs. P1 to P15 were filed through them.

(d) On behalf of the appellant, the bus driver Chandrasekaran and on behalf of the second respondent, the bus driver Kandasami were examined. According to the appellant, the accident took place only due to the negligence of the bus driver employed under the second resdondent, whereas the second respondent put entire blame on the bus driver of the appellant.

(e) The Tribunal after recording evidence concluded that the driver of the appellant was wholly responsible for the accident and as such, the claimant was entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 51,000/- from the appellant.

2. Mr. Pandi, the counsel appearing for the appellant-Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation though raised several grounds in the grounds of appeal, he confined himself to the following contentions:—

This is a case where both the buses collided against each other. Therefore, the negligence cannot be attributed to the appellants bus driver alone. Merely because the driver of the appellants bus was charge-sheeted for the alleged accident, it cannot be said that he alone was responsible for the accident. When there are materials to show that the accident occurred in the middle portion of the road, the Tribunal cannot observe that the accident took place beyond the middle portion of the road and that the appellants bus went to the other side and hit against the second respondents bus. This finding is factually wrong. When it is a specific case of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers, the Tribunal at least ought to have held that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of both the drivers.”

3. Mr. Muniratnam, the learned counsel for the second respondent, would, however, contend that the finding rendered by the Tribunal was on the basis of the materials available on record and as such, it cannot be said that the Tribunal went wrong in fastening the criminal liability on the driver of the appellant alone, especially when the investigation conducted by the Police would go to show that the bus driver of the appellant went in the wrong side and caused the impact on the rear side of the second respondents bus. He would further point out, at any rate, that the degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant was in the higher side when compared to the degree of negligence attributed to the driver of the second respondent, as there was 8 feet space available on the left side whereas only 6 feet was in the opposite side.

4. Mr. Mahendran, the learned counsellor the claimant, the first respondent herein, on the strength of the stand taken by him before the Tribunal, would say that the negligence was established by the claimant on the part of both the