The court confirmed the award and decree of the Tribunal, emphasizing the negligence, liability, and quantum of compensation in a motor accident claim case.

1. The claimant was travelling in the Mini Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-34-A-9455 along with power looms, on the Kozhikalnatham Main road and at that point of time, the Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0636, coming in the opposite direction and at that time, the driver of the Mini Tempo lost his control and dashed against the bus. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim has been filed against the owner and insurer of the tempo.

2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the driver of the tempo had not committed the said accident and that it had been committed by the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Further, the tempo is a goods carrier in which the petitioner had travelled as a passenger. As such, the policy conditions of Insurance had been violated. In the said accident, two vehicles had been involved and as such, the Transport Corporation is a necessary party.

3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: (1) Whether the driver of the tempo lorry had been negligent in his driving or whether the driver of the bus had been negligent in driving the bus? (2) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? If so, who is liable to pay compensation? and (3) To what other relief is the petitioner entitled to get?

4. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked as Exhibits namely: F.I.R.; Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Accident register; Charge sheet; Judgement copy; Hospital records; Medical bills; Salary Certificate; X-ray; and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2, who are attached to the R.T.O. and Insurance Company respectively and 3 documents were marked namely: R.C.Book; Policy Copy and Claim Form.

5. PW1 had adduced evidence that when he was travelling in the Mini Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-34-A-9455, along with his power loom goods, on 06.09.2003, at about 6.00 a.m., on the Kozhikalnatham Main road, the driver of the Mini Tempo lost his control as he had driven it in a high speed and in a negligent manner and had dashed against the bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0630. PW1 further stated that he had sustained grievous injuries on his neck and 3 of his bones were fractured. Besides, his spinal cord bone and bone of left hand had been fractured. PW1 further stated that he had been treated at Tiruchengodu Government Hospital, Erode Government Hospital and Saveetha Hospital, Erode, as an inpatient. He had undergone a surgical operation on his neck at Saveetha Hospital. PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant has sustained 20% disability and his fractured bones in his neck were malunited.

6. RW1, had adduced evidence that the 1st respondent's vehicle is not a passenger vehicle and only a goods vehicle. RW2, had also adduced evidence on similar lines to RW1.

7. PW3 had adduced evidence that he is the employer of the claimant and that the claimant was paid a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.99,866/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel argued that the offending vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle and the claimant was travelling as an unauthorised passenger. As such, the policy conditions have been violated. Further, no additional premium had been paid to extend coverage of Insurance for third parties. The very competent counsel further argued that in the said accident, two vehicles had been involved and as such the other vehicle namely the owner of the bus is also a necessary party in the instant case.

8. The very competent counsel for the claima